My latest Forbes column is entitled “With Freedom of Speech, The Technological Genie Is Out of the Bottle,” and it’s a look back at the amazing events that unfolded over the past week in the U.K. regarding privacy, free speech, and Twitter. I’m speaking, of course, about the “super-injunction” mess. I relate this episode to the ongoing research Jerry Brito and I are doing examining the increasing challenges of information control.

I begin by noting that:

When it comes to freedom of speech in the age of Twitter, for better or worse, the genie is out of the bottle. Controlling information flows on the Internet has always been challenging, but new communications technologies and media platforms make it increasingly difficult for governments to crack down on speech and data dissemination now that the masses are empowered. The most recent exhibit in the information control follies comes from the United Kingdom, where in the span of just one week the country’s enhanced libel law procedure was rendered a farce.

I go on to explain how Britain’s super-injunction regulatory regime unraveled so quickly and why it’s unlikely to be effectively enforceable in the future. Read the entire essay over at Forbes and then also check out Jerry’s Time TechLand editorial from last week, “Twitter’s Super-Duper U.K. Censorship Trouble.” I also just saw this piece by British defamation expect John Maher: “Law Playing Catch-up with New Media.” It’s worth a read.

By Adam Thierer & Berin Szoka

Short but very important essay here from Santa Clara University Law School Prof. Eric Goldman about calls to alter Sec. 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) to address concerns about online harassment. Generally speaking, Sec. 230 immunizes online intermediaries from punishing liability for the content that travels over their networks / services. Specifically, Sec. 230 stipulates that “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.” In other words: Don’t shoot the messenger!

As we’ve noted here before, it is probably not an overstatement to think of Sec. 230 as the very cornerstone of Internet Freedom, since it makes possible an online “utopia for utopias,” to borrow a phrase from our favorite modern political philosopher, the late Robert Nozick. Without Sec. 230, intermediaries would likely be forced to shut down many avenues of communication and would have to become deputized conduct and morality police for every cyber-street corner.

Goldman, America’s leading expert on Sec. 230-related jurisprudence, correctly notes that, “Frequently, § 230’s critics do not attack the immunization generally, but instead advocate a new limited exception for their pet concern.” He’s got that right. Indeed, we are increasingly hearing calls from numerous quarters these days to “tweak 230” for one pet concern after another. We’ve illustrated some of those concerns in this exhibit.

Deputization of the Middleman http://d1.scribdassets.com/ScribdViewer.swf Regulatory advocates can be found for each of these issues who like to see the protections afforded by Sec. 230 scaled back by Congress or he courts. But Goldman rightly warns:

Well, I don’t often get a chance to sing the praises of Hillary Clinton, so let me take the opportunity to loudly applaud her stand on religious defamation policies, which are becoming a growing international concern. According to The Washington Post, while unveiling the State Department’s 2009 Report on International Religious Freedom:

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton criticized on Monday an attempt by Islamic countries to prohibit defamation of religions, saying such policies would restrict free speech. … While unnamed in Clinton’s speech, the Organization of the Islamic Conference, a group of 56 Islamic nations, has been pushing hard for the U.N. Human Rights Council to adopt resolutions that broadly bar the defamation of religion. The effort has raised concerns that such resolutions could be used to justify crackdowns on free speech in Muslim countries.

Here’s specifically what Secretary Clinton had to say:

some claim that the best way to protect the freedom of religion is to implement so-called anti-defamation policies that would restrict freedom of expression and the freedom of religion. I strongly disagree. The United States will always seek to counter negative stereotypes of individuals based on their religion and will stand against discrimination and persecution.  But an individual’s ability to practice his or her religion has no bearing on others’ freedom of speech. The protection of speech about religion is particularly important since persons of different faiths will inevitably hold divergent views on religious questions. These differences should be met with tolerance, not with the suppression of discourse.

Quite right.  Thank you, Secretary Clinton, for this bold stand.  Freedom of religious worship and expression — including the criticism of religion — is essential.  Now, can we talk about your old positions on video game regulation?!

A terrific Radio Berkman podcast this week on “Adventures in Anonymity” featuring Sam Bayard, a fellow at the Harvard Berkman Center and the Assistant Director of the Berkman Center’s Citizen Media Law Project.  Along with host Daniel Dennis Jones, Bayard discusses the intersection of anonymity, free speech, defamation law, privacy, and more.  In addition to sorting through the sticky legal and ethical issues, their discussion includes some really excellent historical perspectives on anonymous speech.  They also get into the recent “skank” blogger case and the AutoAdmit case.  I discussed those cases and some of these issues more generally in these essays:

• Randy Cohen’s “Guideline” for Anonymous Blogging: Ethical or Legal Matter?
• Guidelines & Best Practices for Anonymous Blogging (Pt.2)
• Anonymity, Reader Comments & Section 230
• The AutoAdmit Case and the Future of Sec. 230
• The Future of Sec. 230 and Online Immunity: My Debate with Harvard’s John Palfrey

Ars Technica has just posted the transcript of a friendly debate I recently engaged in with Harvard University law professor John Palfrey about the future of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act and online liability more generally.  Our debate got started last fall, shortly after I penned a favorable review of John’s excellent new book (with Urs Gasser), Born Digital: Understanding the First Generation of Digital Natives.  [Listen to my podcast with John about it here.]  Although I enjoyed John’s book, I also raised some concerns about his call in the book to reopen and revise Section 230, specifically to address child safety concerns.  At the time, John and I were working together on the Berkman Center’s “Internet Safety Technical Task Force” and we decided to begin an e-mail exchange about the future of 230 and online liability norms more generally.  The result was the debate that Ars has just published.

In our exchange, I begin by asking John to more fully develop some statements and proposals he sets forth in Born Digital.  Specifically, he and co-author Urs Gasser argue that: “The scope of the immunity the CDA provides for online service providers is too broad” and that the law “should not preclude parents from bringing a claim of negligence against [a social networking site] for failing to protect the safety of its users.” They also suggest that “There is no reason why a social network should be protected from liability related to the safety of young people simply because its business operates online.” Specifically, the call for “strengthening private causes of action by clarifying that tort claims may be brought against online service providers when safety is at stake,” although they do not define those instances.

Using those proposals as a launching point for our discussion, I challenge John as follows:

I’m troubled by your proposals because I believe Section 230 has been crucial to the success of the Internet and the robust marketplace of online freedom of speech and expression. In many ways — whether intentional or not — Section 230 was the legal cornerstone that gave rise to many of the online freedoms we enjoy today. I fear that the proposal you have set forth could reverse that. It could lead to crushing liability for many online operators-and not just giants like MySpace or Facebook-that might not be able to absorb the litigation costs. Could you elaborate a bit more about your proposal and explain why you think the time has come to alter Section 230 and online liability norms?

And John does and then we go back-and-forth from there.  Again, you can read the whole exchange over at Ars.

It was a great pleasure to engage in this exchange with Prof. Palfrey and I look forward to what others have to say in response to our debate.  I am working on a longer paper looking broadly at the rising threats to Sec. 230 and the increasing calls for expanded online liability and middleman deputization.  I will use whatever feedback I get from this exchange to refine my paper and proposals.

The Progress & Freedom Foundation has just launched the new Center for Internet Freedom.  CIF offers an alternative to the proliferation of advocacy groups calling for government intervention online by offering timely analyses and critiques of proposals that diminish the vital role of free markets, free speech and property rights.  We aim to drive the Internet policy debate in new directions by emphasizing a layered approach of technological innovation, user education, user self-help, industry self-regulation, and the enforcement of existing laws consistent with the First Amendment.  Such an approach is a less restrictive—and generally more effective—alternative to increased regulation.  

Here are some of the issues I’ll be working on as CIF’s Director in conjunction with my esteemed colleagues Adam Thierer, Adam Marcus, and adjunct fellows: 

• Defending online advertising as the lifeblood of online content & services, especially in the “Long Tail”;
• Emphasizing market solutions to problems of privacy protection, especially regarding the use of cookies and packet inspection data;
• Protecting online speech and expression both in the U.S. and abroad;
• Defending Section 230 immunity for Internet intermediaries;
• Opposing online taxation and legal barriers to e-commerce and digital payments, especially at the state and local levels; and
• Ensuring that Internet governance remains transparent and accountable without hampering the evolution of the Internet.

Anyone interested in the long-running debate over how to balance online privacy with anonymity and free speech, whether Section 230‘s broad immunity for Internet intermediaries should be revised, and whether we need new privacy legislation must read the important and enthralling NYT Magazine piece  “The Trolls Among Us” by Mattathias Schwartz about the very real problem of Internet “trolls“–a term dating to the 1980s and defined as “someone who intentionally disrupts online communities.”

While all trolls “do it for the lulz” (“for kicks” in Web-speak) they range from the merely puckish to the truly “malwebolent.”  For some, trolling is essentially senseless web-harassment or “violence” (e.g., griefers), while for others it is intended to make a narrow point or even as part of a broader movement.  These purposeful trolls might be thought of as the Yippies of the Internet, whose generally harmless anti-war counter-cutural antics in the late 1960s were the subject of the star-crossed Vice President Spiro T. Agnew‘s witticism:

And if the hippies and the yippies and the disrupters of the systems that Washington and Lincoln as presidents brought forth in this country will shut up and work within our free system of government, I will lower my voice.

But the more extreme of these “disrupters of systems” might also be compared to the plainly terroristic Weathermen or even the more familiar Al-Qaeda.  While Schwartz himself does not explicitly draw such comparisons, the scenario he paints of human cruelty is truly nightmarish:  After reading his article before heading to bed last night, I myself had Kafka-esque dreams about complete strangers invading my own privacy for no intelligible reason.  So I can certainly appreciate how terrifying Schwartz’s story will be to many readers, especially those less familiar with the Internet or simply less comfortable with the increasing readiness of so many younger Internet users to broadcast their lives online.

But Schwartz leaves unanswered two important questions.  The first question he does not ask:  Just how widespread is trolling? However real and tragic for its victims, without having some sense of the scale of the problem, it is difficult to answer the second question Schwartz raises but, wisely, does not presume to answer:  What should be done about it? The policy implications of Schwartz’s article might be summed up as follows:  Do we need new laws or should we focus on some combination of enforcing existing laws, user education and technological solutions?  While Schwartz focuses on trolling, the same questions can be asked about other forms of malwebolence–best exemplified by the high-profile online defamation Autoadmit.com case, which demonstrates the effectiveness of existing legal tools to deal with such problems.

Schwartz begins by noting that:

Many trolling practices … violate existing laws against harassment and threats. The difficulty is tracking down the perpetrators. In order to prosecute, investigators must subpoena sites and Internet service providers to learn the original author’s IP address, and from there, his legal identity. Local police departments generally don’t have the means to follow this digital trail, and federal investigators have their hands full with spam, terrorism, fraud and child pornography.

He then asks, quite fairly, what the consequences of more aggressive enforcement might be:

But even if we had the resources to aggressively prosecute trolls, would we want to? Are we ready for an Internet where law enforcement keeps watch over every vituperative blog and backbiting comments section, ready to spring at the first hint of violence? Probably not. All vigorous debates shade into trolling at the perimeter; it is next to impossible to excise the trolling without snuffing out the debate.

Certainly, proposals to ban online anonymity would seriously threaten legitimate anonymous speech, as my TLF colleagues Ryan Radia and Adam Thierer have pointed out.  Schwartz is probably correct that part of the answer to the problem of trolling and other serious malwebolences lies in equipping law enforcement at all levels with, and training them to use, the basic tools already available to “pierce the veil” of online anonymity and prosecute truly bad actors under existing laws.  But Schwartz is also right to highlight the danger of relying on government to enforce even existing laws, and to take on responsibility for monitoring online activity.

But like most commentators, Schwartz seems to assume that the enforcement of existing laws is solely the province of the “law enforcement” community (police, prosecutors and government investigators).  To be sure, there are a variety of state and federal laws criminalizing certain acts of “malwebolence.”  But those who find themselves victimized online generally have recourse to bring a lawsuit on their own (a “private right of enforcement”) under well-established causes of action under tort law–a crucial part of the “free system of government” lauded by Agnew.

Specifically, such a plaintiff may bring a defamation claim (“libel” if written, “slander” if oral) or one of the four categories of privacy claims that have emerged since 1890, defined by the magisterial Second Restatement of Torts as follows:

(a)  unreasonable intrusion upon the seclusion of another;
(b)  appropriation of the other’s name or likeness;
(c)  unreasonable publicity given to the other’s private life; or
(d)  publicity that unreasonably places the other in a false light before the public.

If the defendant is known, pursuing such claims is common-place.  The obstacle facing plaintiffs who do not know the legal identity of those who may have defamed them or intruded upon their privacy is the same facing law enforcement:  to “subpoena sites and Internet service providers [and other intermediaries] to learn the original author’s IP address, and from there, his legal identity.”  Such “third party subpoenas” are a vital part of the solution to the problem of malwebolence:  By enabling lawsuits under established causes of action against even anonymous defendants, they provide a real remedy to true victims.  The use of such subpoenas does not require finding new appropriations for “law enforcement,” new privacy laws or re-thinking Section 230’s grant of broad immunity to online intermediaries–a policy prescription that has gathered momentum in recent years.

For example, Daniel Solove has argued in his book The Future of Reputation that Section 230 should be re-interpreted:

to grant immunity only before the operator of a website is alerted that something posted there by another violates somebody’s privacy or defames her.  If the operator of a website becomes aware of the problematic material on the site, yet doesn’t remove it, then the operator could be liable.

Frank Pasquale has argued that we ought to require Internet search engines to provide a “right of reply”–allowing someone to post a “reply” that would appear on a search engine next to content concerning them that they consider inaccurate or defamatory (essentially the “fairness doctrine” applied online).   Others (one example) have argued for replacing Section 230 with something akin to the notice-and-takedown regime of copyright so that publishers’ immunity would be contingent on compliance with takedown notices.  But Mark Lemley, an internet law guru who is representing the plaintiffs in the Autoadmit case, has argued that Section 230 should instead be “rationalized” along with other Internet safe harbors under a unified safe harbor drawn from current trademark law:  “innocent infringers” would have immunity and would not be required to take down allegedly defamatory content, but plaintiffs could get courts to issue injunctions requiring intermediaries to take down content.  What unites advocates of all these proposals is that, like Schwartz, they downplay or ignore the effectiveness of existing tort remedies and third-party subpoenas.

Indeed, if the public is aware of third party subpoenas at all, it is probably only because of their use by copyright-holders in attempting to identify those caught using peer-to-peer software to share copyright materials.  Whatever one’s opinions on copyright and of the recording industry’s enforcement strategy, it is safe to say that the overall impression created by such lawsuits against users has been less than favorable.  Regardless, these lawsuits have established an effective legal process for identifying anonymous defendants.  While we can expect that this process–and the safeguards that accompany it–will continue to evolve, it is critical to appreciate the basics of how the third party subpoena process works if one is to evaluate the policy arguments raised by articles like Schwartz’s.

The infamous Autoadmit.com case provides a clear illustration of how this proces works and the evolving safeguards for anonymous speech.  As summarizes the case–and its most recent development:

“Women named Jill and Hillary should be raped.” Those are the words of “AK-47” — a poster to the college-admissions web forum AutoAdmit.com. AK-47 was one of a handful of students heaping misogynist scorn on women attending the nations’ top law schools in 2007, in posts so vile they spurred a national debate on the limits of online anonymity, and an unprecedented federal lawsuit aimed at unmasking and punishing the posters. Now lawyers for two female Yale Law School students have ascertained AK-47’s real identity, along with the identities of other AutoAdmit posters, who all now face the likely publication of their names in court records — potentially marking a death sentence for the comment trolls’ budding legal careers even before the case has gone to trial.

The plaintiff law students in this case originally sued Autoadmit.com and its operator in a Connecticut Federal District Court, but eventually removed them as plaintiffs in recognition of the fact that Section 230 immunizes them from liability.  But Section 230 did not stop them from suing those who had defamed them anonymously on Autoadmit.com.  And third party subpoenas have since made it possible for the plaintiffs to uncover the identity of most of those defendants.

The Process.  The procedure, made possible by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45, is relatively straight-forward:  A plaintiff brings a lawsuit against a John or Jane Doe(s), a pseuodymous defendant whose identify is as yet unknown.  The lawsuit must clearly state the facts, cause(s) of action and remedy sought–just as with any lawsuit (see the Autoadmit complaint, for example).

Having filed such a lawsuit, the plaintiffs may then have a court issue subpoenas (subject to certain limitations) under FRCP 45 to parties who may have identifying information about the identity of the defendants.  For example, if the plaintiff has the IP address associated with a defamatory blog comment, one can subpoena the ISP for further identifying information about that user.  There may be several steps to the process:  for example, Autoadmit might disclose under subpoena an email address, leading to a subpoena to a webmail provider and ultimately a subpoena to an ISP.  Once the John/Jane Doe has been identified, the lawsuit can proceed.

The Safeguards.  In the Autoadmit case, one of the John Does did indeed file under FRCP 45 a “motion to quash” a subpoena to AT&T by which the plaintiffs sought the disclosure of identifying information about the John Doe.  Plaintiffs, of course, opposed the motion, and the Court ultimately denied the motion.  The Court’s discussion (pp 6-13) is instructive for those wondering just how the First Amendment would protect anonymity when a plaintiff seeks to force an Internet intermediary to disclose identifying information about an anonymous speaker.

At least since the Supreme Court’s 1958 decision in NAACP v. Alabama ex rel. Patterson, the First Amendment has limited the ability of courts to order the disclosure of identifying information (in that case, the NAACP’s membership list).  Since then, U.S. courts have developed a two-part balancing test that” ensures that:

the First Amendment rights of anonymous Internet speakers are not lost unnecessarily, and that plaintiffs do not use discovery to “harass, intimidate or silence critics in the public forum opportunities presented by the Internet.”

Understanding the way in which the Autoadmit.com court applied that test is critical to understanding how courts might balance privacy with free speech in the future:

First, the Court should consider whether the plaintiff has undertaken efforts to notify the anonymous posters that they are the subject of a subpoena and withheld action to afford the fictitiously named defendants a reasonable opportunity to file and serve opposition to the In this case, the plaintiffs have satisfied this factor by posting notice regarding the subpoenas on AutoAdmit … which allowed the posters ample time to respond, as evidenced by Doe 21’s [motion to quash]. Second, the Court should consider whether the plaintiff has identified and set forth the exact statements purportedly made by each anonymous poster that the plaintiff alleges constitutes actionable speech.  Doe II has identified the allegedly actionable statements by AK47/Doe 21: the first such statement is “Alex Atkind, Stephen Reynolds, [Doe II], and me: GAY LOVERS;” and the second such statement is ““Women named Jill and Doe II should be raped….” The Court should also consider the specificity of the discovery request and whether there is an alternative means of obtaining the information called for in the subpoena.  Here, the subpoena sought, and AT&T provided, only the name, address, telephone number, and email address of the person believed to have posted defamatory or otherwise tortious content about Doe II on AutoAdmit, and is thus sufficiently specific. Furthermore, there are no other adequate means of obtaining the information because AT&T’s subscriber data is the plaintiffs’ only source regarding the identity of AK47. Similarly, the Court should consider whether there is a central need for the subpoenaed information to advance the plaintiffs’ claims.   Here, clearly the defendant’s identity is central to Doe II’s pursuit of her claims against him. Next, the Court should consider the subpoenaed party’s expectation of privacy at the time the online material was posted.  Doe 21’s expectation of privacy here was minimal because AT&T’s Internet Services Privacy Policy states, in pertinent part: “We may, where permitted or required by law, provide personal identifying information to third parties. . . without your consent. . . To comply  with court orders, subpoenas, or other legal or regulatory requirements.” Thus, Doe 21 has little expectation of privacy in using AT&T’s service to engage in tortious conduct that would subject him to discovery under the federal rules. Finally, and most importantly, the Court must consider whether the plaintiffs have made an adequate showing as to their claims against the anonymous defendant.

The court noted that there is a range of competing standards for this last prong, but dismissed those standards most deferential to the plaintiff–requiring only that the plaintiff show a “good faith basis” to contend it may have an actionable cause or that there is “probable cause” for a claim–as “set[ting] the threshold for disclosure too low to adequately protect the First Amendment rights of anonymous defendants.”  The court also dismissed other standards very favorable to the defendant, such as requiring plaintiffs to show their claims could withstand a motion for summary judgment, noting the obvious point that “it would be impossible to meet this standard for any cause of action which required evidence within the control of the defendant.”  Ultimately, the court settled on the standard requiring the plaintiffs to “make a concrete showing as to each element of a prima facie case against the defendant” as striking, “the most appropriate balance between the First Amendment rights of the defendant and the interest in the plaintiffs of pursuing their claims, ensuring that the plaintiff is not merely seeking to harass or embarrass the speaker or stifle legitimate criticism.”

While Solove, Pasquale and others would make it far easier for a victim to require an online intermediary to take down content that truly defames them or invades their privacy–or to rein in a troll posting such content–relying on existing tort law of course requires that a victim actually file a website and third-party subpoenas.  Those who demand changes to Section 230 will likely argue that this is too burdensome and costly to be an effective remedy for a widespread problem.  But, again, one must ask how widespread that problem really is before leaping to conclusions about what kind of remedies are required.  As UCLA law professor and Internet law guru Eugene Volokh noted in the Yale Daily News’ coverage of this story, even a small number of lawsuits like Autoadmit “might remind some potential would-be defamers that their anonymity may not be secure.”  One wonders whether the trolls described by Schwartz would really be so brazen if more of their coven were unmasked and sued.

One obvious advantage of relying on the combination of tort law and third party subpoenas is that requiring the actual filing of a lawsuit minimizes the problem of Internet users attempting to squelch legitimate speech–for example, by sending frivolous take-down notices to intermediaries, a serious problem in the copyright context.  Those truly concerned with protecting anonymous speech should take a far greater interest in the balancing test chosen by courts following in Autoadmit‘s footsteps.  Marc Randazza, former counsel for Autoadmit administrator Anthony Ciolli, summarized the the balance struck by the court as follows:  “If you’re doing right, the First Amendment will protect you,” Randazza said. “If you’re doing wrong, it won’t.”

Much more could be said about third-party subpoenas, but it cannot be said that the law does not already provide every American with a remedy against the trolls identified by Schwartz, the villains of the Autoadmit case or other “disrupters of the systems.”  Any inquiry into whether we need new laws or regulations should begin by looking at the processes described above.

The latest attack on anonymous online speech comes from Kentucky Representative Tim Couch, who proposed legislation last week that would ban posting anonymous messages online. The bill requires users to register their true name and address before contributing to any discussion forum, with the stated goal of cutting down on “online bullying.”

The right to speak anonymously is protected by the First Amendment, and the Kentucky proposal raises serious Constitutional questions. In Talley v. California, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned a Los Angeles ban on the distribution of anonymous handbills on First Amendment grounds. However, the Court has yet to directly address the question of anonymous speech on the Internet, as few existing laws target online anonymity.

The Kentucky bill comes on the heels of controversy over the growing popularity of JuicyCampus.com, a “Web 2.0 website focusing on gossip” where college students post lurid—and often fabricated—tales of fellow students’ sexual encounters. The website bills itself as a home for “anonymous free speech on college campuses,” and uses anonymous IP cloaking techniques to shield users’ identities. Backlash against the site has emerged, with Pepperdine’s student government recently voting to ban the site on campus.

Under current law, websites like Juicy Campus cannot be sued for user-posted messages. As Adam Thierer mentions in a recent post, Daniel J. Solove of George Washington Law School has offered some insightful analysis on anonymity in the digital age. Solove points out that under the Safe Harbor provision found in Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, providers are immunized from liability if they unknowingly distribute libelous messages so long as they remove libelous postings upon receiving a takedown request. This issue was further clarified in 2006 in Barrett v. Rosenthal, in which the Court found that website operators are immune from liability when distributing defamatory communications.

Normally, finding the perpetrator of libel on a website can be accomplished through subpoenaing the site’s owner. The website then turns over the IP address of the user who posted the offending content, and the ISP to which that IP is assigned reveals the identity of the offending subscriber. Subsequently, the victim of defamation can file a lawsuit.

But with sites like Juicy Campus that help users shield their true identity, finding the perpetrator of libel can be very challenging. If a poster spreads hurtful lies about you on JuicyCampus, you can have the offending material removed—but you may be left with no recourse against the guilty party. Subpoenaing sites that don’t maintain IP logs is unlikely to yield the offender’s actual IP address, so there is little to deter people from going online and defaming their enemies, hidden behind the veil of anonymity.

Despite the appeal of combating defamation by banning online anonymity, lawmakers should be wary about restricting anonymous speech in the name of fighting libel. The same laws designed to deter defamation can also be used to target political dissent or silence whistleblowers for whom the option of remaining anonymous is critical. While Mark Klein and Babak Pasdar elected to reveal their identities, they remind us that whistleblowers are crucial safeguards against government excesses. And as Chinese dissidents know all too well, governments around the world have a long history of suppressing political opinions that undermine state legitimacy.

Perhaps politicians can manage to craft a law that fights defamation without threatening legitimate anonymous speech. Still, living with the occasional bout of slander and libel seems like a worthy sacrifice if it means protecting individuals’ right to anonymous speech.