Who is Mr. Cellophane?

Anonymity is a privilege many Web surfers take for granted. On the Internet, you can completely mask yourself from society, become transparent and share your views with the whole world. Chat rooms, bulletin boards and e-mail are all ways users can remain anonymous and discuss their views. But a current case involving the alleged defamation of a Pennsylvania Superior Court Judge might open up the floodgates of possible punishment for remarks made anonymously on the Internet.\nFree speech on the Internet has been continuously debated since its birth as a means of public communication. Several states, including California, Connecticut and Oklahoma, have laws which essentially obstruct free speech, but they are mainly for the protection of minors. A House bill in Connecticut actually makes it a criminal offense to send Internet messages "with intent to harass, annoy or alarm another person." What exactly defines these requirements? One person might find a message annoying while another might not. Congress has tried several times to restrict online free speech, but many of its attempts, like most parts of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, have been struck down.\nInterestingly enough, a sub-topic of this free speech debate that is rarely discussed is protecting the identity of Internet users. There are currently no laws protecting anonymity on the Internet. Then again, there seem to be no laws preventing people from remaining anonymous.\nAccording to articles from the American Civil Liberties Union and the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Pennsylvania Superior Court Judge Joan Orie Melvin claims to have been libelously criticized on the Internet four years ago. A post from the anonymous "GrantStreet99" alleged she persuaded former Gov. Tom Ridge to appoint a friend for an available court position. Melvin wants to know the identity of her estranged heckler so this person can be charged for what she considers defamation. Her lawyer claims she was humiliated and that the criticism hurt her reputation. \nPublic criticism is an everyday occurrence for some politicians, which is something Melvin needs to accept.\nRemoving the mask from "GrantStreet99" could open up future cases involving other forms of anonymous criticism. During the Melvin case, Ann Beeson, associate director of the ACLU, explained to the court she is afraid that disclosing identities of Internet users may obstruct open political debate. I agree. People should be able to make political comments without fearing legal retaliation. This is something our founding fathers fought for, and their fight should be continued today.\nAnonymity is a great benefit of Internet communication. It's a civil liberty that should not be marred in any way. People can talk about pressing issues and receive feedback without worrying about gender, age, race, sexual orientation, profession and, most importantly, one's identity hindering others' reception of their views. Not that any of the preceding attributes should be hindrances, but to some people they most certainly are. Unless their comments are deemed libelous, slanderous or threatening, Internet users should not have to fear exposure for expressing their ideas or beliefs.\n Maybe Judge Melvin is afraid of the identity of her critic. If there is any truth to her alleged shady dealings, I can't blame her for being upset. The last thing any politician wants is someone like "Deep Throat" digging up dirt on his or her political agendas. I think the most prudent thing Melvin could do is to publicly deny the accusations. What better way to fight an anonymous accusation than with the identifiable truth? That is, unless the truth hurts.\nWhile we may not be able to influence the outcome of this case, we can do our part by writing our representatives and voting accordingly.