Page last updated at: Thu, 13 May 2010 15:27 PM UTC Printable version

The internet is a haven for free speech and
open discussion of all topics. However,
are there times when free speech
becomes less important than an individual’s
reputation and right to privacy?
Orlando Figes, an
authority on Russian history
and professor at
Birkbeck University,
admitted last month
that he posted positive
reviews on his works and
scornful reviews on the
books of numerous rivals
under different usernames
on the retailing
website Amazon.
After initially denying
the claims and threatening
legal action to those who suggested otherwise,
he then later claimed his wife was the culprit.
Figes eventually gave himself up as the mystery
critic, but his reputation with his peers and the public
has taken an undoubted knock.
Importantly, the saga has reignited debate
about whether contributors on the internet should
be held accountable for what they write.
In our society, which prides itself on free speech
and freedom of expression, there are limits as to
what can be written about people under the libel
law. However, on the internet, the laws are harder
to enforce.
Anything equalling libellous comment on the
internet is usually shrugged off due to the difficulty
and effort needed to track down the author, so little
action is taken.
Historian Robert Service, one of Figes’ victims,
used a column in The Guardian to suggest that the
case highlighted the shortcomings in our current
libel laws. He said that: “It is a matter that has
broad implications for the public interest,” and that
Figes’ threats of legal action show that under
current laws, “if someone is wealthy and malicious
enough it is possible to
tread on the throat of
free and open discussion
in this country.”
However, the internet
is almost impossible
to police in the
same way as other
media platforms.
There is an inherent
freedom to the internet
resulting in a situation
where anyone can
write anything they
want. Comments can be published across the
world, anonymously if they wish, which makes it
difficult to alter.
It is important to note that anonymous commentators
on the internet are not entirely anonymous.
In the case of Figes, he was caught-outdue
to his hardly-cryptic aliases ‘orlando-birkbeck’
and ’Historian’. Commentators may not use their
real names, but they are very rarely untraceable.
Computer IP addresses and email accounts
linked to website logins are kept by sites and can
be used, should any major legal infringements be
committed on the internet. It isn’t uncommon to
see stories where people guilty of observing or
downloading illegal material are traced by the
police and prosecuted.
Not always sinister
Obviously the high majority of internet interaction
is not sinister, so forcing users to comment under
their own names could be seen as punishing the
entire internet community for the sins of a severe
minority. One positive trait of usernames though,
is that they do allow the user a form of privacy. It
could be argued that users may contribute more
because they have that protection and can easily
comment once or twice on a debate without having
to get too invested in discussion.
Perhaps people wouldn’t ask for help on websites
if they didn’t have the ability to use pseudonyms.
Would it be fair to make people put their full
name and address on letters submitted to magazine
agony aunts?
Other aspects of the internet would be spoilt by
banning or at least condemning anonymity. Certain
websites use anonymity to draw in contributors.
Websites such as PostSecret, where users
anonymously send postcards with secrets on them
which are then put onto the site, can serve as an
outlet for people who perhaps feel trapped by their
secrets. The users of the website ChatRoulette log on
and are randomly matched up to any user and are
free to talk to them about anything they wish for
as long as they want. The attraction of the website
is that you can chat with anyone anytime. It is well
documented that celebrities use the website and,
if you are lucky, you could find yourself talking to
stars like Ashton Kutcher or Katy Perry. The website
uses anonymity as a way of provoking spontaneity
and fun, and this aspect of internet
anonymity shows that it isn’t purely a way of hiding,
but finding a different way to present yourself.
To look at this issue in a broader context,
The recent case of Simon Singh, the science writer
acquitted of libelling the British Chiropractic Association
(BCA), shows that freedom of speech on the
internet and the British libel laws are hotly-debated
topics. After a £200,000 two-year war with the BCA,
libel charges were dropped suddenly in April, to the
delight of Singh and freedom of speech campaigners
across the country.
Singh wrote a piece in The Guardian two years ago
disputing the validity of treatments used by chiropractors
that “can help treat children with colic, sleeping
and feeding problems, frequent ear infections, asthma
and prolonged crying, even though there is not a jot
of evidence.” His comments provoked outrage
amongst the BCA and they issued him with a lawsuit
after he alleged that “this organisation is the
respectable face of the chiropractic profession and yet
it happily promotes bogus treatments.”
anonymity in the world of words is not an invention
of the internet. J.K. Rowling famously wrote
using her initials rather than her given name of
Joanne, as she feared young boys wouldn’t read
books written by a woman. An older example
would be the author Mary Anne Evans, who
began writing under the pen name George Eliot
in the 19th century to increase her credibility in a
literary scene dominated by men.
She became one of the country’s best-known
authors and her anonymity made her career.
This is not to say that the current generation’s
greatest authors lay hidden in the depths of
forums and comment sections, but it demonstrates
that anonymity gave these two the security
to continue with their pursuits and show their talent
to the world.
Another example showing that anonymity can
help people in finding their identity is the internetoriginated
group Anonymous. Beginning on cult
websites such as 4chan, Anonymous are a group
best-known as internet vigilantes. Members of
the group allegedly attacked the website of white
supremacist broadcaster Hal Turner in late 2006
and also made news when they shut down the
Australian government’s website in February this
year, in protest at this government’s internet censorship
plans.
Another stunt of the group involved members
dressing up in masks inspired by the anarchist
comic book hero V from V for Vendetta– later a film
starring Natalie Portman and Hugo Weaving –
His case attracted much media attention as it
brought to light some injustices in the current libel
laws, which the media themselves are constant victims
of. In contrast with historian Robert Service’s
comments on Orlando Figes’ anonymous and debatable
reviews of his peers’ works, underlining that the
libel laws don’t do enough to protect academics’
work and should be toughened, Singh believes that
his case will signal the beginning of a change towards
more lenient libel laws.
The current system sees libel cases being brought to
court simply because organisations like the BCA did
not like what Singh was saying.
The question that must be answered though, is
whether the rights of those writing in newspapers are
equal to those on the internet. Printed words still
appear to have more influence than those on a computer
screen, possibly explaining the larger rate of libel
cases brought to print media. Still, that shouldn’t be
enough, and both media will keep being affected.
and protesting against Scientology.
The group gives the contributors a chance to
fight for the causes they believe in, in a way they
feel comfortable. It is an effective and noticeable
way of making an impact, and it gives the members
a collective voice with which they can protest.
Not tolerable
Of course there are reasons why internet
anonymity can be negative. The Orlando Figes
case is one example that shows that some can
abuse anonymity for self gain. Another is that the
internet is a place where people go to express
themselves differently than they would in person:
one cursory look at nearly any YouTube video will
uncover many derogatory comments about any
person. It is hard to imagine that similar behaviour
offline occurs in the same proportion as it does
on the web, and that the same people act that way
in real life. If it were the case, people would be even
more rude than they already are.
Whilst more experienced users would suggest
that this is a risk of participating on the internet
and that it should be expected, that does not
mean it has to be tolerated. There is no reason why
someone should have to face being unfairly criticised
or even insulted, without reason or counterargument,
regardless of whether it is online, in
print or in person. As online interaction is impersonal,
people detach emotion from the situation.
However, written insults hurt just as much as verbal
ones and in some cases, the fact that it isn’t in
person is not an entirely viable defence.
The internet acts as a different form of social
interaction from face-to-face conversation and
for many it is a substitute for reality. For better or
for worse, the internet will always lack the definite
personal interaction of the real world. But perhaps
it isn’t meant to be the same, which is why Figes’
reviews won’t affect his sales or really those of the
historians he trashed, and probably why the
internet will never be the world’s number one

Comments: