Should The First Amendment Protect Anonymous Online Trolls?

March 29th, 2011 - By TheEditor

"Charing Ball"One of the very first things you learn as a commentator on the Internet is to never – and I mean never – feed the trolls.

We’re not talking about the beastly creature that tormented the three Billy Goats Gruff in the classic Norwegian fairytale, but rather the internet slang term used for the anonymous persons that posts inflammatory and just flat out mean-spirited comments on online discussion forums, chat rooms or in the comment section of your blog.

As a writer, particularly one who publishes their work online, you will learn to develop a thicker skin over time to deal with attacks from those whose sole purpose is to provoke an emotional-based response. As infuriating it is and can be at times, consider the trolls as a not-so-pleasant consequence that comes with the privilege of participating in the last bastion of free speech also known as the Internet.

But not everyone is feeling the free speech terrain.  Jermaine Hall, Editor-in-Chief of a Vibe magazine, and his wife will be in court today to seek a court order to disclose the identity of an anonymous online poster, who calls him/herself BETonBlack. According to published reports, in November and December of 2010, BETonBlack called Hall an “Uncle Tom” for marrying a white woman and then went on a tirade to insult his wife’s appearance. The comments were made on LipstickAlley.com, a very well known gossip online message board where people go to well, gossip.

Last month, a New York judge ordered Lipstick Alley to disclose the anonymous poster’s name. In response, Lipstick Alley’s message board operators reached out to Public Citizen, an Internet free speech organization with a long history of defending the right to speak anonymously on the Internet. They are now providing legal assistance to Lipstick Alley and the anonymous poster.

According to the attorney working on behalf of Public Citizen and the anonymous poster, this case represents the unending debate over people’s First Amendment right to speak anonymously on the Internet. Moreover, the attorney claimed that the “Halls have not provided the required proof that would prompt a court to order the critic’s identity to be disclosed.”

Certainly, the proliferation of incivility online has warranted some sort of corrective action, but at what point does cracking down on anonymous content threaten freedom of expression? Moreover, is there such a thing as having anonymous speech protected by the First Amendment?

Online usage has induced a plethora of lawsuits demanding that the identities of anonymous posters be revealed; however, the outcomes of the request differ depending on the judge.  Recently, a Texas circuit court judge ordered an online news aggregation site to turn over any potentially identifying information it has on its 178-member posters, some of whom posted alleged defamatory comments about two individuals involved in a sexual assault case.  In Cleveland, a judge there sided with a website dedicated to criticizing a Lorain County home builder; the site often featured anonymous posts that attacked the quality of the homebuilder’s work.

These sorts of lawsuits could be troubling for some people because it could result in a much harder time using the Internet if real names and/or addresses are revealed. Corporate whistleblowers, human rights workers and organizers, and victims of domestic violence all benefit from the anonymity of the Internet.

As for Hall, it appears that he might be making mountains out of a molehill because prior to lawsuit, most users probably never heard of BETonBlack or his or her comments.  Now it’s a guarantee that folks will be actively seeking them out. Those who learn of this story will have a comment on not only the merits of this case, but whether or not BETonBlack in right. In essence, Hall broke rule number one of the Internet: never feed the trolls.

Charing Ball is the author of the blog People, Places & Things.

More from StyleBlazer
More from MommyNoire

Comment Disclaimer

Comments that contain profane or derogatory language, video links or exceed 200 words will require approval by a moderator before appearing in the comment section. XOXO-MN

  • AKADRFUNK

    …or they could simply block out commenters they don't .This blog does that to me often.

  • mouth

    Why do they get to be nasty and not held accountable? Hows about they make everyone log on with PAID email providers, ala' Sandra Rose, so that if it gets too heated they know where to look/ That should colm some lames down.

    I get sick sometimes when i see some of the ish some people write… say that mess out loud.

  • Jessica

    Yep. Unless they're threatening to come after someone and do bodily harm, people making mean comments is nothing new under the sun. It's been going on for thousands of years.

  • 7lady

    Well they do have a right to say what they want. I just wish the site moderators would delete some of that stuff. They are such a nuinsance. I picture the people very unattractive or possibly physically handicapped. There’s just no way your happy with yourself speaking that malicious.

  • toni

    sticks and stones may break your bones… but words can turn into violence… look at what happened at columbine, Virginia Tech, etc.

  • Iguesssi

    I agree with justsayin. I don’t go back and forth with trolls either because all they’re looking for is a fight. And stuff is not that serious.

  • if anything be noble

    I think you can be mean, yes, but not anonymous. I think it’s the shield of anonymity that makes people say outrageousness. Tell em why you mad. If you mad, say you mad… But sign your name to all that venom so it’s clear how to find you. Never before could people just write in to a newspaper or magazine or go on tv and defame people anonymously. (I guess they always could call a radio station and go off on crazy rants about the president or ballplayer but not some ex-lover, neighbor, coworker or business owner down the street.) So, internet hate is a whole new kind of hate that can destroy a person’s life, future and career and I do think there should be some limits to what you can say online.

  • Tiphanie

    Sh**, grow up. So, you mean to tell me that this dude is taking somebody to court because they, basically, were calling his wife names? Are you THAT immature? Whatever happened to “sticks and stones” or ignoring people? So, that means that I can take the b***h that was talking about my outfit at the club the other night to court then, huhh???

  • Lynn

    Jermaine Hall needs to man up and stop whining. So what if somebody talked about his wife? People get talked about all the time, especially on the internet. And, as long as those people are not posting threats, they should be allowed to share their opinions. Hall doesn't have to like it. He needs to either develop tougher skin or find another profession!

  • JustSaying

    I think posts on the internet should be held to the same standards as those made in "real life". An opinion is protected by the 1st amendment, even if it is mean spirited. However if something is libelous or an outright lie, then the poster should face the same consequences of their words as if they had made them in any other public forum.

Get the MadameNoire
Newsletter
The best stories sent right to your inbox!
close [x]