by Jim Rose in liberalism Tags: anonymous free speech, conjecture and refutation, free speech, the growth of knowledge, trolls

The Federalist Papers were written by trolls. These trolls were James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and John Jay. They were not meek men: all three were founding fathers of the United States of America. All had a proven record of sticking their neck out when it really could be chopped off – hung from the gallows for treason against the British Crown as leaders of the American Revolution.

Why were James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and John Jay the modern day equivalent of Internet trolls? At the time of publication, the authorship of the Federalist essays was a closely guarded secret. To this day, who of the three wrote which essay is still unclear.

The publication of political tracts under pseudonyms was standard practice at the time of Madison, Hamilton and Jay. The purpose of the anonymity was to avoid personalities and personal attacks upon the authors.

Those who were disagreeing with an anonymous tract could not attack it by saying that the author was corrupt. Rather critics had to respond to the arguments made in the publication. A brilliant debating tactic.. This tactic is different from using anonymity to avoid arrest in unfree societies.

Much of the Left would be put out of business in terms of their political discourse about global warming if they couldn’t attack the author personally saying he is a lackey of multinational corporations and big carbon.

Imagine what the debate over global warming would be like if everyone had to contribute anonymously. People actually have to start debating the points made by the various sides rather than who their opponent used to work for, might want to work for in the future or might have accepted a small think tank donation or research grant from at some point in human history.

The identity of the speaker is an important component of many attempts to persuade, but the most effective advocates have sometimes opted for anonymity. Anonymous pamphlets, leaflets, brochures and even books have played an important role in the progress of mankind.

Anonymous authors do take the risk of being ignored by not signing their name. Anonymous pamphlets that attack the reputation of others or allege corruption and misconduct are far less credible than those carry the name of the authors.

This costing in credibility of choosing anonymity is even the case in the United States where defamation of public figures must pass a very high bar: shown that the false statement and defamatory statement is made with actual malice – knowledge of the falsity or reckless disregard for the truth.

A frequently cited 1995 Supreme Court ruling in McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission reads:

Protections for anonymous speech are vital to democratic discourse. Allowing dissenters to shield their identities frees them to express critical minority views… Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority… It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation . . . at the hand of an intolerant society.

Identification of the author and fear of reprisal might deter perfectly peaceful discussions of public matters of importance. The anonymity may be motivated by fear of economic or official retaliation, by concern about social ostracism, or merely by a desire to preserve as much of one’s privacy as possible.

The most powerful form of political expression is undertaken anonymously and no one questions that anonymity. The secret ballot is a hard won right to vote one’s conscience without fear of retaliation and the need to explain to others for any reason no matter how curious they might be.

The right to remain anonymous may be abused when it shields fraudulent conduct. But political speech by its nature will sometimes have unpalatable consequences, but society accords greater weight to the value of free speech than to the dangers of its misuse.

HT: various Supreme Court opinions