The Price of Freedoms David DavenportDavid Grünberg Bilkent Computer Eng.METU Philosophy Ankara TurkeyAnkara Turkey

Introduction Internet culture – sharing & free speech, anti-establishment Netizens argue that anonymous communications – Ensure governments can’t spy on citizens – & thus guarantees freedom of speech AAAS report – “Online anonymous communication is morally neutral.” – “It should be considered a strong human and constitutional right.” We argue that this view is mistaken

Social Justice & Accountability Individuals living in free society – Reap benefits & expected to contribute in return Problems occur due to imbalances Small communities (close ties, stable) Large communities (anonymous, unstable) – Decision-making mechanism (government, …) – Controls (citizens consent to court adjudication) Ensure Justice through – Good will & individual conscience – making wrongdoing infeasible – Accountability Individuals living in free society – Reap benefits & expected to contribute in return Problems occur due to imbalances Small communities (close ties, stable) Large communities (anonymous, unstable) – Decision-making mechanism (government, …) – Controls (citizens consent to court adjudication) Ensure Justice through – Good will & individual conscience – making wrongdoing infeasible – Accountability

Consequences of Anonymity Social stability demands accountability – to stop those responsible for imbalances If anonymous – then not identifiable – and hence not accountable! Crime & anti-social behaviour go unchecked – Leaving victims & society helpless If anonymity were the default – available to government & individuals in government – Government no longer accountable!

Free Speech Serious disadvantages to anonymity – but proponents say free speech more important Freedom of Speech – Fundamental part of democratic tradition – To protect individual against might of society – Why? Ideas transform society however unpalatable, may ultimately prove beneficial so, no one should be punished for expressing views – Note: inherent to concept that speaker is known!

Anonymity & Free Speech Anonymous communications – Ineffective means of protecting free speech May be unavailable or use obviously incriminating Unwillingness to act on or believe anon. messages (encourage honesty & openness…) – Promote open discussion (unprejudiced?) Good, but open to misuse Legitimate restrictions on free speech! (libel, incitement, fraud) Need protection of law in such instances Traceable communications source info. available to courts, so accountable recipient need not know source, so “anonymous”

Concluding Remarks Anonymous comm’s are said to – ensure individual privacy & freedom of speech – promote free and more open discussion AAAS report supports this view – quotes part of UDHR Article 12 “No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honor or reputation.” Argued that this view is mistaken…

Concluding Remarks Accountability essential to stability of free & fair society Anonymous communications Mean individuals & governments cannot be held accountable Fail to protect free speech & not essential to open discussion Article 12 of UDRH continues “Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.” The Way Forward Open participatory government (use Internet!) The Price of Freedoms is accountability, openness, honesty & vigilance