On anonymity
Some asshat calling him/herself “A Liberal Genius” posted the following in comments below, regarding the Hennesey foofaraw:
Doesn’t make any difference what happens, Hennesy has committed slander and should be sued. Problem is he’s not worth being sued so nobody will bother. He’s just another neocon coward hiding behind a keyboard
There’s some irony in the fact that Genius decided to use a nom de plume, but still. The bottomline- or the troubling part of the statement- to me, anyway, is that Hennesy commited slander. I thought it had to be untrue to be considered slander?
As far as anonymity, I write under a pen name, because enough people have enough of my time already. I’m not anonymous because I’m afraid of my views, I’m anonymous because I’m intensely private, and I respect the privacy of others, even assholes.
I’m actually concerned about the slander comment more. How does that work? IANAL, but shit. That’s some kind of accusation.
Some people clearly believe that anonymity contributes to their not being taken seriously. However, what it takes to be taken seriously takes considerably more than using one’s real name.
Being entertaining, widely informative, or pose a real threat to power, and especially all three, can so garner being taken seriously that one might lose one’s head.
As I implied in my comment on the earlier thread, anonymity didn’t detract from Blaise Pascal, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, or John Jay from being taken seriously.
I guess MY definition of “coward” would also include someone who remained anonymous, but then pasted up three pages of google-fu (on your nickel) instead of saying anything substantive. (ed: Thanks, Dog, I deleted the spamola. )
The ONLY reason I write anonymously is to protect my family. I welcome the opportunity for any assclown wannabe tough guy on the planet to come after me personally.
Kelly, no. Then I’d get mad.
Hennesey? Slander? What are we talking about? And what’s IANAL!??
Have to read the link in the post below.
I Am Not A Lawyer.
Got it. Well, first of all, it wouldn’t be slander, it would be libel. Second, if Hansen deigned to sue Hennessy, the burden would be on Hansen to prove that what Hennessy said was untrue and damaged his reputation in some way, but most important in this case, Hansen would have to prove that *Hennessy* knew he was lying when he said Hansen’s full of crap, but just said it anyway. You know, like say someone started a rumor that Miley Cyrus had an abortion — THAT would be libel. Hennessy expressing his opinion that Hansen is full of shit is NOT libel. Therefore, ALG fails.
See, sometimes reporters know what they’re talking about.
Yeah, it’s only in England that you can sue someone for libel on the flimsiest of pretexts, and the burden of proof falls on the defendant — not on the plaintiff.
In this country the bar is set a lot higher for libel — presumption of innocence, plaintiff has burden of proof, and all that.
Which suggests that ALG is a nincompoop who didn’t do his homework before he went all emo on Hennessy in your comments.