Anonymity is a puzzling issue; namely because it forces people to choose a side. A side between preserving our rights,
or sacrificing for the greater good. There are those who use anonymity for good, for the intended purposes. However, there are
those who would, and do, use anonymity wrongly, for criminal purposes. The issue that is posed to us now than is whether or not
it is worth the vast amount of wrongful use to preserve this anonymity on the internet for those who use it appropriately. Some
argue that it would be a breach of the United States' Constitution, chiefly the first amendment, to suppress anonymity in any way
due to the fact that we are guaranteed free speech; essentially to suppress anonymity would be to suppress free speech. However,
there are those who argue that it is a necessary breach to try to limit the large amount of crime being committed via the internet. Both
sides are essentially at a standstill at the moment, with those in favor of preserving anonymity being in the majority, small a majority
though it may be. Luckily, there seems to be a middle ground, at least for the moment; some propose restrictions be put into place
instead of a total removal of anonymity on the internet. This illustrates that people wish to preserve anonymity, even if that means having
to restrict themselves, in order to serve the greater good. Having the ability, the right, to speak is worth defending, not relinquishing.
There are pitfalls to preserving anonymity in the face of crime; the most prevalent of which is that it allows for crime to
endure. Essentially, to not eliminate anonymity on the internet allows for the crime that is predicated on that principle to continue on
unchecked. Whether or not we want to admit it, crime is taking place on our grid, so to say. The anonymity that is granted to these
few who use it as a weapon is by our own doing; we are responsible for it. It is understandable why there are those who want anonymity
to be done away with. Anonymity though, at least on the internet, has many different levels; everything from actual mass scale crime,
down to trolling and writing hurtful comments without anyone being the wiser as to who said what. Accountability is the paramount principle
that is lost when anonymity is allowed to continue on. People are not responsible for what they say or do on the internet, and that has
led to many an issue with the people who use it. Aristotle comes to mind with this issue of large scale communities and anonymity; for it
was he who argued, the larger a community, the less connected it is, and the more unrestrained we are likely to act. Seems he was right,
to some degree. It seems that the internet is a breeding ground for wrongful and hurtful things, not only does it breed it, it harbors it.
Anonymity almost promotes this lack of a moral compass and seems to be a refuge for criminals.
Perhaps the most concerning of issue of anonymity on the internet other than crime is the fact that children have access to
potentially harmful material. Anonymity, in part, allows for children to pose as older individuals and view material that could be potentially
harmful to them. There are those who argue that we need to end anonymity, make everyone responsible, and make everyone register in
order to keep track of who said and did what. They feel that the breach of the constitution is a necessary and useful one; they are willing
to sacrifice for the greater good. Thus, the crux of the issue arises once again, is it worth it? There are those who would argue that no, it
is not. They feel that it is going too far to try to restrict, or limit free speech in any way, that includes anonymity. They feel the good that is
brought, however small, is worth enduring the amount of hate and crime that occurs. They see the world, or in this case the internet, through
rose colored glasses; not to say that they only see the good and ignore the bad, but that they choose to focus on the good. A popular argument
against this group of freedom fighters, is the one that the founding fathers could not have had the capacity to see the internet and the many
different opportunities it holds. In other words, had the founding fathers known what the internet was they would have set some different rules
for the internet itself. Of course, it is far too fleeting, the idea that we would know what the founding fathers would have done; so the argument
loses a bit of steam after that counterpoint.
The price of freedom is that we must endure that which makes us weak. This is the price we must pay for having our freedom we;
must overcome and deal with the crime and wrongdoing that is occurring in order to sustain our freedom. The small good that is being done
outweighs the bad. The potential for good things that can come from anonymity are too powerful, or rather too important. If an inside man, so
to say, was in need of getting the word out without his identity being known, than anonymity on the internet is a safe haven for that person. It is
the opinion of many that, with regard to the hateful speech being spread about, that individuals should be more thick-skinned so to say. In other
words, they should try to be of the 'sticks and stones' mentality; easier said than done. The support that comes from anonymity is also another
valid reason to keep anonymity; there are those who use anonymity to support victims of crimes, hate speech, etc. that have been through similar
events themselves. Anonymity allows for those individuals who wish to give their support to do so without requiring them to release their identity.
Essentially, the argument for keeping anonymity on the internet is predicated on the potential good it has, or can do. People want to believe in the
ability of their fellow man to do the right thing and use the opportunities afforded to them through anonymity the right way. The restrictions proposed
by some seem to be the most effective way to satisfy each group of individuals. They allow for anonymity to remain intact, while at the same time
making it more difficult to commit crime or spread hate speech.
The individuals that believe that anonymity needs to be totally done away with are a bit too guarded and need to realize that good can come from
anonymity on the internet. The group that believes that anonymity needs to stay intact in full need to realize that what they are defending, while
being a form of free speech, is also allowing for crime and hate related material to be facilitated and perpetuated. In all, minor restrictions could be a
useful tool that help limit the crime being committed, and help to stop the spread of hate related material, especially towards children. There is a price
for freedom, and there always will be one as long as we intend on granting rights. That does not serve as an adequate reason why we should not
strive to limit the wrongdoing of others as best we can while still maintaining our rights. Freedom is a costly word; whether paid in sweat, blood, or
tears, we all know that we must do what we can to preserve it. For it is not a word to be found with fleeting meaning, but rather a word met with great
understanding and devotion. Anonymity on the internet is a difficult issue, one that requires great patience and great understanding. There is a quote that I
feel sums up to some degree how we should feel, from Tennyson, "We are not now that strength which in old days moved earth and heaven, that which
we are, we are; one equal temper of heroic hearts, made weak by time and fate, but strong in will. To strive to seek to find and not to yield." In other
words, do not give in, do not give up, we are strong.