All around the world the problem of how (if at all) to apply campaign laws to the Internet is causing plenty of agitation. In Australia, the main problem arises from laws requiring that electoral advertisements should include the name and address of the person advertising. Usually, this means a TV ad ends with an attribution to a party functionary, spoken in a rapid monotone at the end of the slot. But a site called JohnHowardLies.com (it seems to have vanished, but there’s an archived copy here attracted a lot of attention and suggestions that it should be regulated in the same way.
I’ve just come back from an appearance before the Parliamentary Electoral Matters Committee Inquiry into the Conduct of the 2004 Federal Election and Matters Related Thereto, where I presented a submission arguing that blogs, and commenters, should not be required to identify themselves when commenting during an election campaign, using the analogy of callers to talkback radio, who are allowed to be anonymous. It was a pretty vigorous session, and some members of the Committee were clearly not convinced. So I wouldn’t be surprised to see an attempt to restrict anonymous Internet comment coming out of the Committee’s report.
My immediate analysis is that, if anonymous comments were prohibited, the only way to be safe would be to close down comments during election campaigns. Even if people gave full names and addresses, I don’t have the resources to verify them.
Anyway, it would be good to hear other views: I’ll need to think more about my own.
{ 19 comments }
j 07.06.05 at 7:10 am
I think you should just require people to give their real name and address – it worked for Hotmail.
John Quiggin,
Brisbane,
Australia.
David Velleman 07.06.05 at 7:22 am
I don’t think that blog comments are analogous to the comments of callers on talk radio. On talk radio, callers are carefully screened and their comments are closely moderated by the host. The mix and length of comments reflect the editorial judgment of the producer and host. There is no talk-radio program that broadcasts all comers at whatever length they want to speak.
Of course, increasing governmental control of electoral speech is very worrisome. But as an (almost former) blogger, I have to say that if anonymous blog comments disappeared, I wouldn’t miss ’em.
jet 07.06.05 at 7:28 am
What benefits? The benefits of John Howard, John McCain (US assclown), and all the other power hungry above reproach from mere rabble, to not have to put up with “irresponsible statements”? What utter crap. Who the hell votes for these people?
engels 07.06.05 at 8:07 am
I think one idea would be to demarcate anonymous speech from traditional speech. On a blog like this you have comments by real people who have to take responsiblity for what they say and must be subject to the usual legal sanctions alongside anonymous comments which do not come with the same guarantees. I think this is great as long as people are aware of the differences. Similar to the way in which people are aware of the differences between reading something in Wikipedia and reading it in the Encyclopaedia Britannica. I think Amazon now has a system where reviewers have the option to prove that they are “real”.
By the way, I think you agree, but comments are almost the whole point of blogs, in my opinion. Getting rid of anonymous comments altogether would also seem extremely sad, I think, despite the obvious problems, and I wonder what has driven David Velleman to this view.
Stentor 07.06.05 at 8:22 am
The international nature of the internet seems to make attempts to restrict speech on it nearly impossible, at least for regimes not willing to go to Chinese-level lengths to police what can come into the country. If I — as an American — were to start an anonymous blog on an American server about how John Howard sucks and nobody should vote for him, there would be not much the Australian government could do.
Anne Onnymuss 07.06.05 at 8:54 am
an attempt to restrict anonymous Internet comment
… just isn’t going to work. On any given site, it can be done, and for all Oz-hosted sites, it can more-or-less be done with monumental effort and Draconian action … but on the Whole Darn Internet? I don’t think so.
Any attempt to turn back this particular tide would leave the would-be legislators looking like a bunch of silly Cnuts.
Maria 07.06.05 at 9:11 am
It seems quite a leap in logic to classify political speech as advertising – especially as the legislation in question is so broad as to include any political issue that might be under discussion in an election. Even accepting that some political speech will have an advertising element, from a public policy point of view it makes more sense to put the onus on would-be prosecutors to establish that a commenter is a (presumably) paid advertiser of a particular party or view point rather than imposing a universal registration regime.
Two other possible lines of argument:
I think there’s a well developed literature on the link between anonymity and political speech. Maybe others have good links to the essential rights literature, especially in the Australian context.
There are worrying data protection implications. This requirement would force bloggers, etc. to become holders of personal data (which may well involve notification of the relevant authority and other reporting and security requirements). Also, I’m not familiar enough with the Australian DP law to say, but in other countries personal data that pertains to political views gets special protection and should only be collected in quite circumscribed conditions. Worth checking this out.
paul 07.06.05 at 9:29 am
The international nature of the internet raises yet another bugaboo — in many countries, it’s unlawful for noncitizens to make campaign contributions including in-kind contributions, which would, one supposes, apply equally to the political advertisements that any speech about an election is now supposed to be.
I wonder where the logic of this kind of thing would eventually lead — obviously demonstrators carrying placards will have to have their names and addresses prominently visible along with their messages. Perhaps those who wish to cheer or chant will also be required to shout their identities.
If there must be some kind of regulation or identification of paid commenters (which seems nice for various reasons), then the obvious way to do that would be with reporting requirements for their employers — with teeth — rather than shutting down of the venues they attempt to infest.
jim 07.06.05 at 9:36 am
I don’t see how such a thing is enforceable. Suppose I comment anonymously on CT to one of your posts on Australian politics in such a way as to praise or dispraise a candidate. CT is not subject to Australian law.
Anonymous blogs can be set up outside Australia easily enough: JohnHowardLies.blogspot.com, anyone?
Kosh 07.06.05 at 10:12 am
Some talk radio hosts don’t screen calls, but all of the conservative ones do. Wonder why.
David Velleman 07.06.05 at 10:12 am
To clarify — I didn’t say that I thought anonymous blog comments should be regulated! I just said that, if they disappeared, I wouldn’t miss them. (Hey — I’ve got relatives whom I wouldn’t miss if they disappeared. That doesn’t mean I think they should be rubbed out.)
DGF 07.06.05 at 10:41 am
I think we need to distinguish between regulating political speech in blogs and in comments. Blogs serve as nexus points for political discussion (and in the case of more popular blogs, money) and in so doing elevate the blogger over and above her readers. Blog comments don’t do any of those things. In fact, OTOH I’m finding it difficult to think of any significant threats posed to democracy by anonymous commentary. If anything, I’d argue that by and large anon. comments are inherently democratic in and of themselves (in that they’re open to anyone with net access) and democracy-enhancing.
rea 07.06.05 at 11:31 am
A practical point is that, at least under US law, if you provide an open forum on the internet, you are not responsible for comments made on the forum. In other words, bloggers are not legally responsible for comments.
As long as bloggers can’t be co-opted by the state into serving as comments police, any rule regulating comments will be, as a practical matter, unenforceable.
jet 07.06.05 at 12:56 pm
Rea,
Don’t the US courts often strike down unenforceable laws?
rea 07.06.05 at 1:58 pm
Jet–US courts will strike down laws that are unconstitutional, but not law that merely are unenforceable for practical reasons.
And certainly, despite American exceptionalism, few US courts would be so bold as to try to strike down an Australian law . . .
Ballentine 07.06.05 at 2:38 pm
Isn’t the whole point of regulating political speech based on the premise that wealthy people and organizations can dominate the discussion (through profuse advertising or media ownership)? The internet lowers the financial barriers to near-zero. Any candidate can set up a website and any citizen can blog or comment for all to see. It seems that technology should be driving us toward less regulation, not more.
jet 07.06.05 at 3:15 pm
Yahoo! v. La Ligue Contre Le Racisme et L’Antisemitisme, No. C-00-21275-JF (N.D. Cal. Nov. 8, 2001)
Yeah, Australia will have an impossible time enforceing this unless they use Chinese measures to track their citizens who host their sites in other counties.
Lazygal 07.06.05 at 7:51 pm
Actually, the US has started talking about the use of blogs as advertising in elections (the whole concept of equal time comes into play here). Not just the “official” blogs but those like Instapundit and even lowly personal blogs that casually mention a candidate and his/her position. It’ll be interesting to see how this all shakes out.
hmm 07.09.05 at 1:24 am
Equal time?
Are we currently monopolising a broadcast medium of limited spectrum?
Comments on this entry are closed.