The great evil of the Internet, if the dissents are to be believed, lies in its opportunity for anonymity (York: “Hotgrrl81 unreservedly proclaims what real-world Jennifer Smith dares not whisper”; Benavides: “[E]xtremists can foster pernicious ideologies when not checked by . . . socially regulating ‘etiquette.’”). When we are not held personally accountable for ours views, it seems, those views are without social value. They only pervert the marketplace of ideas; they only calcify individual opinions and thereby polarize political discourse.
Anyone who has ever read the Federalist Papers would surely disagree with our friends in dissent. The “Publius” pseudonym hardly deprived Madison/Hamilton/Jay’s ideas of their abundant merit or spawned an inescapably extremist polity. From the Federalists to Deep Throat to Primary Colors, anonymity has always played a useful role in facilitating the free flow of ideas and information; and whatever Osama Bin Laden’s views on taxes may be, it cannot be denied that ideas have value even when detached from a flesh-and-blood individual. (This may be the reason that U.S. copyright law provides legal protection to forms of expression but lets ideas roam free).
And just because an idea is not ripe for serious public consideration — just because its failure to conform to prevailing standards of “etiquette” might imperil the reputation of its purveyors — does not mean it is best left to die at the inaccessible depths of lonely minds. Indeed, this is all the more reason why extreme viewpoints need an outlet for expression: they fill a void in the marketplace of ideas. And modern history is already filled with examples of movements that began on abandoned corners of the Internet and eventually bubbled into the mainstream; those who don’t like the Tea Party may prefer the example of Howard Dean’s out-of-nowhere presidential campaign. More poignantly: we should probably applaud, rather than stigmatize, Iranian dissidents who have the audacity to defy the “etiquette” of their country by anonymously posting “extreme” democracy-promoting content online.
A second, related point is that the Internet offers an escape from the real world pigeonholes we may occupy. A certain point of view may not fly in one’s social circle or workplace; a position of authority may make the expression of particular opinions taboo or even impermissible. Such social shackles differ from traditional censorship only in their manner of operation, not in their end result. Call the Internet a “shroud” if you will, but it is a deeply liberating one — for ideas themselves and for the individuals expressing them.
To be sure, the Internet may allow for the proliferation of extreme viewpoints, and may attract the readership of those who are hungry for them. But more ideas is never a bad thing. And a world without the Internet would not be any rosier in this regard: “extremist” viewpoints would then be monopolized by the most extreme extremists — namely, those who don’t have a reputation to protect.
No Comments