"Is There Value in the Right To Be Anonymous Commenters?" (define value...)

There’s been a lot of talk about the so-called right to be forgotten lately, but the Virginia Supreme Court this week agreed to look at another type of online user right: the right to anonymous commenting.

Hadeed Carpet Cleaning is suing Yelp to unmask seven commenters who allegedly left highly critical comments about the cleaning company, including that they charge twice as much as advertised. It’s not just that they can’t take criticism - the company does not believe the commenters were actual customers. But Yelp has argued that businesses should not have to unmask identities without evidence of libel and that Hadeed’s suspicion is not enough to demonstrate defamation.

An early court decision backed Hadeed and it will be interesting to see what the supreme court rules, but, defamation and libel aside, this brings up an interesting example of how online anonymity can be abused.

We’ve featured a few posts on this blog discussing online anonymity (and pseudonymity, for that matter) and how it is often wrongfully used to perpetuate racist, sexist and other derogatory commentary. On the other hand, in what some call the Age of Surveillance, anonymity provides us all with a modicum of privacy. Plus, as Judith Donath has pointed out, tying identity to everything online can have a chilling effect on the freedom of expression. Philosophical, political and social commentary could be stifled.

And now the Hadeed case brings with it another interesting angle to the online anonymity debate.

What if said anonymous commenters are, say, Hadeed’s competition? Or past associates with an axe to grind? Or simply trolls?


by  Jedidiah Bracy, CIPP/US, CIPP/E
read full article at IAPP