 |
| Opposition activist and writer Roderick Chia celebrating the Workers' Party victories in Aljunied and Hougang at the 7 May 2011 General Election, Kopitiam, Bencoolen Street and Middle Road, Singapore, 9 May 2011 |
COMMENT: "Activist Registration Act – Part 1" by SINGA CREW, 17 May 2012 (reproduced with permission)
The Marvel-verse took a decidedly Orwellian turn with the introduction of the Superhuman Registration Act (SRA). Costumed vigilantes, who relied on Anonymity as much as super-strength to perform their unpaid duty to the public now face a new threat. The SRA compelled the superheroes to register their real life identities with the United States government – giving up their safety and that of their loved ones.
And just like that, the once tight-knit superheroes community split into two opposing camps. One against and one for the Superhuman Registration Act. Both sides suffered casualties, and Aunt May became collateral damage when the Kingpin put out a hit on Peter Parker, after he revealed his secret identity as Spiderman to the public..
Perhaps this flight of fancy through Comic Land can give us food for thought. Suppose, just for a moment, that a similar act targeting genuine patriots who desire to challenge the status quo was enacted in Singapore? Suppose bloggers and online commentators too, like the fictitious heroes of Comic Land, are compelled to register their real life identities with the government?
If that were to happen, what little freedom of expression we have will be further curtailed.
A Brief History
I would like to make it clear from the get go that the use of pseudonyms has a grand tradition and history older than the United States itself. The Federalist Papers, a series of articles promoting the ratification of the United States Constitution and which was described by historian Richard B. Morris as “a classic in political science”, were written under a pseudonym. The authors of the above mentioned documents were none other than three of America’s Founding Fathers – namely Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay.
Critics of Anonymity would do well to reflect on that.
It may be news to many readers, but some of the greatest literary works in history were also produced using pen names. Do you recognize “George Orwell”, “Mark Twain” or “Voltaire”? They were all pen names.
Having said all that, let us examine the reasons behind the use of pseudonyms – online and offline.
Anonymity and Freedom of Speech go hand in hand
If you support a person’s right to Free Speech, you can’t say “Oh, but certain things can only be said when you use your real name”. Freedom of Speech is not a buffet where you get to pick and choose. Either you believe in it unequivocally or you don’t. Therefore, it doesn’t make sense that some proponents of Free Speech would support the latter but cull the former.
Not to me and not to the Supreme Court of America.
“Protections for anonymous speech are vital to democratic discourse. Allowing dissenters to shield their identities frees them to express critical minority views . . . Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. . . . It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation . . . at the hand of an intolerant society.”
1995 Supreme Court ruling in McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission
This is NOT a perfect world
In a perfect world inhabited by perfectly reasonable people, we need not fear hateful retaliation from speaking our minds. Dictators will sell their mansions to feed the homeless. Gang leaders will eschew violence in favour of chess games to resolve their differences. And terrorist groups will exchange their weapons for week long retreats at Buddhist meditation centers.
Unfortunately, we do not live in a perfect world, but one inundated with race crimes, sex crimes and what-have-you crimes committed by unreasonable people who will discriminate based on one’s race, sex, sexual orientation or religion. Therefore, anyone with even the slightest smidgen of common sense will think twice about revealing his identity online and turn himself into a target for every hate-filled psychopath lurking in the murky world of Virtual Reality.
And I am just not convinced that it is my public obligation to assist identity thieves in their endeavours…
Transparency doesn’t necessarily add value
Unless you are a big-name academic or celebrity, attaching your true name to an article will do little to strengthen its credibility. Intelligence and law enforcement officers just want you to believe it does because it makes their job that much easier!
Let me share with you here some choice quotes uttered by real life politicians who didn’t feel the need to hide their identities.
“If I have to shoot 200,000 students to save China from another 100 years of disorder, so be it.” - Lee Kuan Yew endorsing the Tiananmen Square massacre, Straits Times, Aug 17, 2004
You know, if that was posted on any respectable internet forum, it would have been deleted and gotten the poster banned. But now I am sure genocide has real value because Mr. Lee didn’t hide behind a pseudonym.
“I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky.” – Bill Clinton, January 26, 1998
Can’t you hear the ring of truth in his words? Bill Clinton too, was not hiding behind a pseudonym!
Okay, I was being sarcastic, but I think I have made my point. Just because a person is not using a pseudonym doesn’t make his words any more valuable or truthful than mine or that of other anonymous writers out there. Only the most naïve would believe that Transparency is a synonym of Integrity…
Also, we have to be mindful that while notable individuals feel secure enough in their positions to air whatever views they fancy in public, many of us do not enjoy the same privilege of rank.
Singa Crew: Part 2 will be up within the next few days. I am still tweaking my concluding paragraph. Meanwhile, enjoy Part 1! I am still tweaking my concluding paragraph. Meanwhile, enjoy Part 1!
This comment was pasted by SINGA CREW on his blog on 17 May 2012.
The comment is reproduced here with his written permission.
No comments:
Post a Comment