In Chapter 5 Tedford and Herbeck address anonymous speech and the ramifications that it brings. The question from the chapter that I'm choosing to address is "whether third parties who facilitate anonymous communication can be compelled to reveal the identities of anonymous speakers." (Tedford Herbeck 128). This has become a very significant matter of debate with the introduction of the internet. The amount of websites that allow their users to create and post content anonymously is seemingly endless and there has to be some level of accountability for that.
Anonymous speech can be productive and it has its places in communication but it has the capacity to be dangerous and damaging. The example that I am going to use for this is the application Yik Yak. Yik Yak is smartphone application that allows users to post anonymously with other individuals in their geographical area (Tedford Herbeck 128). Yik Yak was introduced to my small hometown the summer after I started college. Small towns have very unique cultures and it isn't uncommon for most individuals in town to know each other and to know everyone else's actions. Individual's privacy and personal lives are much more public than in a city of millions. When there is that loss of privacy and repression of personal expression for fear of community backlash it isn't a hard stretch to see the appeal of an anonymous website that allows users to say whatever they please.
Immediately there were two separate issues that arose. The first was a case of cyberbullying where a group of senior girls posted defamatory statements about another girl in their class. There was an internal investigation and because it was a small town the news quickly spread about who was responsible for the comments. However, the administration couldn't take action because there was no physical proof of who the original authors were. The second case was a bomb threat that claimed that there was a bomb in a locker in the school. The administration and the police were informed and went through the subsequent steps to identify the individual. They eventually were able to track the device used to post the threat by working with Yik Yak an apprehended the individual (Imrie).
The issue with this is that Yik Yak in the bomb threat situation unmasked the anonymous author by request of the administration as it should have. However, in a situation where there was a clear breach in First Amendment rights the perpetrators were cleared because they used an anonymous app. The disparity between the broken laws are huge but both situations should have resulted in consequences for the authors. Third party platforms that allow for anonymous speech can be entertaining and fun but there needs to be stricter policing for every level of law enforcement to help protect against all broken laws.
Sources:
Imrie, Robert. “Police Say Teen Admits to Making Medford Bomb Threats.” Home - WAOW - Newsline 9, Wausau News, Weather, Sports, 1 Oct. 2014, www.waow.com/story/26680045/2014/10/01/medford-high-school-evacuated-after-bomb-threat.
Tedford, Thomas L., and Dale Herbeck. Freedom of Speech in the United States. Strata Publishing, Inc., 2017.
Anonymous speech can be productive and it has its places in communication but it has the capacity to be dangerous and damaging. The example that I am going to use for this is the application Yik Yak. Yik Yak is smartphone application that allows users to post anonymously with other individuals in their geographical area (Tedford Herbeck 128). Yik Yak was introduced to my small hometown the summer after I started college. Small towns have very unique cultures and it isn't uncommon for most individuals in town to know each other and to know everyone else's actions. Individual's privacy and personal lives are much more public than in a city of millions. When there is that loss of privacy and repression of personal expression for fear of community backlash it isn't a hard stretch to see the appeal of an anonymous website that allows users to say whatever they please.
Immediately there were two separate issues that arose. The first was a case of cyberbullying where a group of senior girls posted defamatory statements about another girl in their class. There was an internal investigation and because it was a small town the news quickly spread about who was responsible for the comments. However, the administration couldn't take action because there was no physical proof of who the original authors were. The second case was a bomb threat that claimed that there was a bomb in a locker in the school. The administration and the police were informed and went through the subsequent steps to identify the individual. They eventually were able to track the device used to post the threat by working with Yik Yak an apprehended the individual (Imrie).
The issue with this is that Yik Yak in the bomb threat situation unmasked the anonymous author by request of the administration as it should have. However, in a situation where there was a clear breach in First Amendment rights the perpetrators were cleared because they used an anonymous app. The disparity between the broken laws are huge but both situations should have resulted in consequences for the authors. Third party platforms that allow for anonymous speech can be entertaining and fun but there needs to be stricter policing for every level of law enforcement to help protect against all broken laws.
Sources:
Imrie, Robert. “Police Say Teen Admits to Making Medford Bomb Threats.” Home - WAOW - Newsline 9, Wausau News, Weather, Sports, 1 Oct. 2014, www.waow.com/story/26680045/2014/10/01/medford-high-school-evacuated-after-bomb-threat.
Tedford, Thomas L., and Dale Herbeck. Freedom of Speech in the United States. Strata Publishing, Inc., 2017.
I thought your post was interesting because I remember when YikYak became a big thing. I was in my freshman year of college and at first it was an entertaining app, but it quickly got out of hand. Cyberbullying was a big problem associated with the app because of the anonymous feature. It is interesting that we had similar experiences in completely different institutions. Recently, I've noticed another app emerging that seems to be similar. Although your location isn't a factor, the app Sarahah has similar features. It allows people to post anonymously on someones page if they know that person's username. Then, the posts can be shared to social media. I have again seen cyberbullying on this app. Why is it that people are willing to bully others if they can simply hide behind an "anonymous" app? To me it seems that these app aren't as anonymous as they seem.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree that both situations should have resulted in consequences/punishments for the authors. However, it seems that the general consensus of society is that only threats that involve serious acts of physical violence require unmasking an anonymous speaker and taking legal action. This is disheartening to me, for I believe that cyberbullying is a major issue that our country needs to properly address. It seems as the only times cyberbullying is a topic of interest is when a student was driven to suicide because of it. Up until the suicide, the cyberbullying is called digital drama and life according to cyberlaw expert Parry Aftab (Koebler). Furthermore, “…bullies have gotten more complex and malicious as Internet access becomes more accessible with the rise of cheap, Internet-enabled mobile devices and as social networking becomes more intertwined with students’ everyday lives.” (Koebler).
ReplyDeleteNow I realize that the article I am citing above was posted in June of 2011, making the data over six years old. However, studies conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have found that 15.5% of students reported that they were cyberbullied in 2015, and that this percent was 14.8% in 2013 and 16.2% in 2011 (“Cyberbullying Facts”). These statistics suggests that the rate of cyberbullying per year is not simply increasing or decreasing. Rather, the frequency of digital bullying fluctuates—some years it’s more common, while other years it is less noticeable. So even if cyberbullying is at a relative low right now compared to previous years, there is still a chance that the rate will increase again. I find it even more likely when you consider the continued rise and success of social media platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Snapchat, etc. that are often used as mediums for this bullying and defamation.
But what is the best way to combat online bullying and defamation? In my opinion, the most effective countermeasure is to simply take away the ability to be anonymous on the social media websites that junior high and high school students frequently visit. Many would see this as an invasion of privacy or an infringement of their First Amendment rights, but as we discussed in class today (Oct. 3, 2017) social media sites are public domains owned by a corporation. Their terms of service already give them control over what you publish on their site, so I don’t believe it would be too far of a stretch to put in a clause that requires you to post content under your real name. As I stated in a previous post, I have a philosophy that if you are going to say something, then you had better be prepared to back it up and/or face the consequences.
Looking back at my proposal, I do admit that it is a bit drastic. However, I do believe that the action it calls for is in the general direction required to limit and defeat cyberbullying. After all, shouldn’t the wellbeing of students be protected above must everything else, including an individual’s right to anonymous speech on the Internet?
Sources:
“Cyberbullying Facts.” Cyberbullying Research Center, https://cyberbullying.org/facts
Accessed 3 Oct. 2017.
Koebler, Jason. “Cyber Bullying Growing More Malicious, Experts Say.” U.S. News, 3 June 2011, https://www.usnews.com/education/blogs/high-school-notes/2011/06/03/cyber-bullying-growing-more-malicious-experts-say
Accessed 3 Oct. 2017.