I am writing today to announce the closure of the New Mexico Independent. After three and a half years of operation in New Mexico, the board of the American Independent News Network, has decided to shift publication of its news…
While environmental activists played their part yesterday during demonstrations at the capitol building, going so far as to dress up as solar panels and to sing the tune of “You Are My Sunshine,” their counterparts, the anti-cap-and-trade contingency who has…
Roughly one quarter of University of New Mexico students are unimpressed with the state’s flagship public school, according to a survey that questioned college students about their higher education experiences.
Using an anonymous screen name online to slam someone else is a cherished Internet tradition.
But does it rise to the level of protected free speech?
Last month, attorneys for the defendants in a horrific double-murder case in Tennessee argued that their clients were so harmed by anonymous commenters on local media Web sites that a judge needed to order the media to shut the comments down.
Dozens of anonymous commenters, enraged by the racially-charged case, had called for the lynching of the black defendants on sites run by the Knoxville News Sentinel and a local television station. Attorneys for the suspects asked a judge to force local media to either disable anonymous commentary on the slayings or require the news organizations to draft policies requiring posters to reveal their identities.
The media companies named in the action rose up in protest, as did First Amendment advocates who said the action would violate the constitution by limiting free speech and making the media subject to prior restraint.
Last month the judge rejected the request to restrict comments on the Web sites, agreeing that such censorship would indeed be unconstitutional and unfair.
“So long as people are not committing any wrongdoing they should be free to anonymously participate in the online forums,” the judge wrote.
Right here in New Mexico, anonymous comments posted online played a part in legal arguments in highly-publicized hit-and run-case.
Defense lawyers for local attorney Carlos Fierro, who faces charges of vehicular homicide in the death of William Tenorio, had petitioned a Santa Fe judge for a change of venue for the trial. Their grounds? That newspaper articles, plus online comments and Internet blogs, have poisoned the potential jury pool in Santa Fe.
This week a judge rejected that argument and ruled that Fierro’s trial should stay in Santa Fe.
Here’s my personal take on anonymous commenters: I don’t like ‘em. Call me old-fashioned, but I think that if you’ve got something to say — especially if it is as vicious as some of the comments I’ve seen on some sites –you should have the courage to put your own damn name on it.
Is the level of discourse really raised when people lob bombs at others from behind a wall of anonymity? I don’t think so.
Does this mean I don’t think people shouldn’t have the right to comment anonymously? No, I do. But my level of respect ticks down ever so slightly when someone makes a comment — especially an excessively negative one — on a site and won’t sign their real name.
Then again, I live and die by the First Amendment. As an opinion writer, I relish open discourse and enjoy engaging in spirited yet thoughtful debate.
So the issue of anonymous comments sometimes keeps me up at night, battling between my (all-American!) love for free speech and my personal annoyance at people who spew hate while hiding behind screen names.
And I’m finding it immensely interesting that the anonymous commenter issue seems to have become the latest legal tool for defense lawyers who think their clients are being unfairly slimed.
I don’t think it’s a winning strategy, but I’d bet good money it’s going to keep popping up in court.
