In Andrew Keen's essay "Douse the Online Flamers," the author laments the presence of cyberbullying and online 'flaming,' or the open and aggressive insulting of others on the Internet. In essence, the advent of the Internet has created a huge public forum where people can anonymously say incredibly hurtful things and harass people, even to the point of suicide. Keen's article approaches the subject from the perspective of potential litigation against cyberbullying and trolling, stating that the US Supreme Court may find it of great importance to reinterpret how anonymous speech is valued in a civil society. The debate between whether or not trolling is free speech ignores the need to protect citizens from libelous remarks from anonymous people, which can dramatically affect their mental health and state of well-being.
Keen notes the case of Megan Meier, a 13 year old who was cyberbullied by others at her school to the point where she committed suicide, as one instance of why cyberbullying should be stymied or punished in some way. In essence, this case was a clear matter of a campaign of bullying on the part of a mother of a schoolmate of Meier's, but due to the anonymous nature of the Internet she could not be prosecuted, as it wasn't illegal to do so. Laws are starting to change in light of these events, as Internet harassment is increasingly becoming a valid charge with concrete sentences and punishments.
On the other hand, Keen notes the slippery slope argued by many that these kinds of laws infringe upon free speech. For example, in the McIntyre vs. Ohio Elections Commission case, the court ruled in favor of the defendant, because the ruling defended political speech that was anonymous. The context, Keen argues, changes when it becomes non-political and turns into a direct attack on people's character and reputation. Again, this touches on concepts of anonymity online; it is difficult for people to prosecute against those who sully their reputations online, because the source can come from anywhere - including members of online discussion forums and bulletin boards.
The solution, Keen states, is to re-evaluate the importance of anonymous speech in today's free society, particularly when it is abused so freely. The laws protecting free speech, Keen argues, were meant primarily to allow for political ideas and positions to be freely expressed without persecution, not to persecute others without having to be punished for it. Flaming has even led to the deaths of many who have been bullied and harassed in their own homes through their computer screens. Keen argues for more legislation to be put in place, so that anonymous purveyors of libel, lies and slander can be punished for doing irreparable damage.
Keen's article on cyberbullying and flaming on the Internet brings up many issues of free speech and the appropriateness of anonymity. While anonymity is good for protecting our speech, Keen believes something must be done about its status as a shield by which to lie and slander others. These acts have very personal and damaging effects to their victims, and the newness of the Internet means there still does not exist a way to really stop these troublemakers. Keen thinks that federal legislation is the key; at the same time, the implication lies in the fact that common courtesy and kindness should be emphasized first and foremost so that these laws are not necessary.
