Date: Wed, 3 Mar 93 11:39:32 -0800 From: Eric Hughes <hughes@soda.berkeley.edu>
So in this model, how can you provide personal responsibility? Well, I would argue that the buck should stop at the remailer site. They are the closest link to the chain of liability, and they have intentionally performed measures which make it impossible find the next link in the chain of liability. So, let the liability rest with the remailer site!
I interpret you to mean that it is not personal responsibility for speech that you want, but the existence of someone to sue. Sorry for not being clear; I was merely speculating on how the Real World might react to the presense of remailers. I actually think this might be a reasonable response, and perhaps even a likely one. Let's cast this into a physical world example. Suppose someone has developed a system which will allow someone to broadcast, over a bullhorn, at 150db, in your neighborhood. Suppose further that said system will allow anybody to broadcast over that source, at either free or at 10 cents a minute, in such a way that it is impossible to track down the source. Now suppose that this bullhorn (which is located on private property) starts spewing announcements and other people exercising their right of free speach, at all hours of the day and night. Now, then, let us explore the this example. In this example, is it reasonable to presume that it is each individual houseowner's responsibility to put up soundproofing, to protect themselves from unwanted noise? If so, why? Why not? And if the people of the neighborhood decided to get together and sue someone, who would be the likeliest target? Does this example apply to the remailer issue? Well, their are certainly examples that go both ways. For example, if you receive junk mail, you just throw it out. On the other hand, if you receive crank calls, you are entitled to call your phone company, and they will make an attempt track down the crank caller and turn over his identity to the police, with the charge of harassment. Now, you haven't directly stated that you think that strong anonymity shouldn't exist. If this is what you think, plase say so directly. You can then make whatever argument you wish to support this position, but I, for one, would like to argue against clearly stated positions. Whether or not it "shouldn't exist" is somewhat irrelevant, don't you think? If people really want to put them up, they're going to exist. In retrospect, it was a mistake for me to point out that it might be a bad idea to make that sort of services available, since I doubt any of the anonymity salwarts have been listening to me anyway. (It sometimes certainly as seemed like no one has really be listening to me, as some of the accusations of my being a censorship lover and being associated with some evil cabal (tm) seem to attest.) Some of my less than thoughtful outbursts were caused by my exasperation at how people were obviously not listening, and who were responding by name-calling and arguments that were completely beside the point. I apologize for those outbursts. In any case, I don't believe the benefits of strong anonymity are worth the negative consequences, and that most of the benfits of strong anonymity are also provided by weak anonymity. Hopefully, if strong anonymity does have the bad effects I fear, there will be ways for our society to correct for them --- for example, holding the administrators of the remailers liable for the damage caused by the remailers. This may not be the case, given things like international boundaries. But it is probably unproductive to argue about whether or not this will or will not happen. Time alone will tell. "Speech made anonymously will carry a presumption of falsity in all consideration of tort resulting from said speech." One can pass legislation proclaiming this to be the case; legislation has been passed declaring PI to be 3. The question is whether or not this is a really a true statement the way the human mind works in general. While tort law often seems to bear little or no resemblence to the outside world, it is supposed to based on the real world. This is why when someone is suing someone else for Libel, English Common Law states that you have meet three standards: (a) the statements must be false, (b) the speaker must have know the statements were false, and spoke them with malicious intent, and (c) real damages were incurred. (And that is what the plaintiff is sueing to recover for.) If what you say is true, that human beings have a presumption against believing statements made anonymously, then test (c) will fail automatically; no real damage would have occurred. In this case, the legislation is simply not needed. On the other hand, if it is true that people will believe statements made anonymously, and so real damage can be done as a result, then the person who has been wronged should have every right to obtain compensation for those damages. That's what the tort system is all about. - Ted