Real-Name Policy: An End to Free Speech?

In the U.S., real-name policies have become important tools used by both Facebook and Google+ to create a "real world" environment, with the aim of making it easier for users to find and connect with each other. The companies delete user accounts found using fake names, and this has caused users to complain with some stating their accounts had been wrongfully deleted, while others said they wished to use a pseudonym for privacy reasons.

Meanwhile, real-name policies are increasingly linked with censorship in Asia to combat libel, fraud, pornography, and rumor. In China real name registration has applied to Weibo and many other popular microblogs in China for over a year, and the policies have also created worries, both in the industry and among users. The nation's government, which is known for its strict censorship of the Internet, is gradually forcing the country's microblogs to require users to register their accounts with their real identities. Users who do not comply will no longer be able to publish posts. Real-name registration will make it even easier for officials to track down and punish people posting sensitive content and poses the security risks, which is another way to restrict people’s freedom of speech.

In fact, many prominent writers, bloggers, journalists, and academics are already tweeting on microblogs on a real name basis. This is why microblogs took off so quickly. Many of the outspoken ones are already monitored or heavily censored. The new registration requirement probably would not affect what these people write, but it will likely decrease their readership and influence. Ordinary people are limited to one account and they will have to think twice before posting or re-posting content that might be seen as objectionable.

For many citizens, life without online social interaction is unimaginable. Social media pervades everyday lives. In societies where the state has restricted traditional media, the Internet offers an eye-opening and unique atmosphere. Moreover, the ability to connect to a broader network is meaningful to people because it affirms their individual dignity. Minorities and people open to unconventional views can see that they are not alone. Universal awareness of real name registration and the consequential degree of targeted monitoring would diminish this unique and liberating experience. While a relatively small number of netizens rely upon online anonymity to express themselves, the imposition of real name registration is felt by wired societies broadly.

In 2012, South Korea’s Constitutional Court struck down a controversial 2007 law requiring contributors to online forums to use their real names when leaving comments. Although meant to stop abusive postings from anonymous users, the law was found to be undermining freedom of speech. The real-name policy without a doubt infringes the users' right to free speech and to determine personal information, along with the operators' freedom of speech. While authorities claimed that they were preventing libel, underneath their claims is an anti-democratic mind that is trying to muzzle unfavorable press coverage.

Of course, hiding behind online anonymity and spreading false rumors or slandering someone with abusive words is clearly an act of violence. People who are able to post anonymously are far more likely to say awful things, sometimes with awful consequences, such as the suicides of cyber-bullied young people. The abuse extends to hate-filled and inflammatory comments appended to the online versions of newspaper articles. In addition, there are concerns that the increase in freedom of speech may have side effects, such as the defamation of celebrities online. Human dignity is also a cherished value. And uninhibited free expression online promoted by anonymity can result in an assault on human dignity. However, these wrongdoings can be punished by tracing the Internet address of the user. Implementing a real name policy to control these actions is like burning the house to roast a pig. The protection of speech may bring some discomfort for the time being, but still it is something we should bear. After all, the freedom of expression is an important constitutional value, which is the basis of democracy.

When striking down a law prohibiting anonymous distribution of leaflets, the Supreme Court wrote that anonymity serves “to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation and their ideas from suppression, at the hand of an intolerant society.” Before clicking “Likes” on Facebook and Google’s policies, think about those not in a position to express their opinions in the real world but feeling comfortable doing so online, those who need help with personal problems, and those in oppressive regimes who have felt free to speak up precisely because they believe that they cannot be identified. Real-name policies reduce some offensive speech, but they also deter people from contributing thoughtfully to controversial topics. Sometimes anonymity allows us to speak the unpopular truth. Anonymous speech can be abused, but it can be useful. And the bad can be impossible to separate from the good. It is just like a lot of our other civil liberties in that respect.

Unfortunately, real-name registration seems to be the easiest way for government to regulate microblogs, but it may endanger netizens' personal safety. More should be done for both government and internet companies to strengthen internet security before rushing to enforce real-name registration. To strike a balance between ensuring the opportunity to participate online for those whose rights will be advanced by anonymity and ensuring that free expression and human dignity are not hijacked by those hiding behind online anonymity, who intentionally want to hurt others and disrupt civil discourse, I think under the real-name policies, there should also be the option of anonymity, if not in registering on a site, at least in one’s posting. Therefore, people may not only say what they truly believe, respectfully, and say only those things that they are willing to have permanently attached to their names, but also participate in a discussion of a sensitive anonymously in order to protect their own privacy and the privacy of family or friends.