Learning Takeaways for week 4

Learning Takeaways: Week 4 of Class

1. A vast majority of people in the United States have witnessed or been involved in some form of anonymous online harassment. The presence of widespread online harassment, the practice of “trolling” and the “death of civility” has led some to argue that websites should not allow anonymity. Women are statistically more likely to favor this policy than men. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/11/20/about-1-in-5-victims-of-online-harassment-say-it-happened-in-the-comments-section/#
2. Some court systems in the United States allow plaintiffs to file suit under a pseudonym. The plaintiffs must have a good reason to be anonymous, and requests for anonymity may be denied. Circumstances, where anonymous suits may be allowed, include but are not limited to, when an individual or their family may be a risk of harm, if an individual may be at risk of retaliation, age, and subject of the suit.
3. Each case of an anonymous lawsuit is handled on a case by case basis, and courts use a balancing test to determine if the need for anonymity is greater or less than the right of the public to know. Debates on policy and law regarding this issue commonly revolve around this discussion as well.
4. The justification of anonymity in any situation can be extraordinarily circumstantial and subject to a wide range of opinion and belief that sway it one way or another.  

Personal Takeaway:

A lot of the questions asked this week were hard for me as I judged the effect anonymity not just in a court of law, but in the court of public opinion. A lot of us seemed to struggle with questions ranging from anonymous online posting to anonymous litigation, to anonymous publication in media sources. I hoped discussion would allow me to discern a side I more agree with. In all honesty, I’ve come away from this week stuck squarely in the middle of a murky gray area where I don’t know know if there is a catch-all right answer. And I’m not sure that’s a bad thing.