Would you accept having to wear a t-shirt with your name to go to a demonstration?

I know that the question I put in the title of this post may seem frivolous to you, but it is not, judging by certain debates.

The scandal of censorship on Facebook by governments without going through Justice
How to spot a troll on and off social media and what to do if one harasses you

Proposals against anonymity on the Internet and what they would mean on the street

In these increasingly frequent debates, some claim that anonymity on social networks is a threat and that it should be mandatory to sign with your name and surname everything you publish on the Internet. These proposals arise from the abuse that some make of anonymity to commit crimes, or not even that, since the dissemination of false news or opinions that some describe as "hate" are not even a crime, at least in democratic countries.

Thus, what is being proposed is equivalent to forcing us to wear a t-shirt (or any other item of clothing) with our name clearly visible in order to go to a demonstration, since in both cases it is the exercise of a fundamental right: freedom of speech.

A measure that would facilitate retaliation based on opinion

Let's stop for a moment to think about what the consequences of such a measure would be. Who would go to a demonstration knowing that anyone could have access to the full names of all those attending? Any protest could be a cause of workplace reprisals, in certain cases. Likewise, in some places such identification would make it easier for protesters to be harassed, threatened and attacked by unscrupulous people who do not agree with their opinions. In some places in Spain such mafia-like practices are common among separatists and the extreme left.

Obviously, requiring all protesters to wear their names prominently on their clothing would be a threat to freedom of expression, by making it easier for them to be retaliated against for their opinion, thus considerably aggravating the retaliation that we already have to suffer so often in the current situation. The same can be said of the proposal not to allow people to use pseudonyms to express their opinions on social networks, under the excuse that some people use them to commit crimes.

The excuse of the difficulty in fighting criminals

A very common argument from those who propose ending anonymity on social networks is that it makes it difficult to identify potential criminals. It's true. No one can deny it. But the same thing we can say about anonymity on social networks can also be said about the streets: not wearing our name clearly visible on the street also makes it difficult for the police to catch criminals. However, I have never seen anyone propose an identification measure like that, perhaps because it is complete nonsense.

Why does what would be nonsense on the street become, according to some, reasonable on the Internet? The claim that the Internet makes things easier for criminals is not an acceptable excuse. On the street we enjoy the same anonymity and that gives rise to many crimes, without anyone proposing such absurd measures to solve the problems of insecurity that we have.

Would it be reasonable to require that we present our ID in many places in order to express our opinion?

I know that someone will tell me that we have an obligation to be identified on the street by our identity document. It is true. Some suggest that, instead of prohibiting people from using pseudonyms, what should be done is require people to present an ID card on internet sites in order to be able to express their opinion. A proposal that some support without stopping to evaluate its consequences.

To begin with, such a measure would be equivalent to having to provide a copy of our ID to the person calling for a demonstration. How many people would go to a demonstration if such an obligation were established? Obviously, there would be a great risk that our identity document would end up in the wrong hands. Perhaps that is why no one proposes measures like this. Once again, what some would consider abnormal on the street seems normal on the Internet.

Our identity document would be more exposed to data theft

In 2021, the Popular Party proposed in Spain the obligation to present the DNI to internet service providers. In the article I wrote about this proposal, I pointed out one of the risks it would entail: it would expose your ID all over the web if you are a very active commentator, as you would have to provide a copy of your ID to any site you participate in: social networks, media, forums, blogs... That would increase the risks of massive data theft. Let us remember, for example, Facebook's data theft of 500 million users in 2021.

On the other hand, our ID could be used by cybercriminals to impersonate us anywhere, and to this end a black market for identity documents could even be created. To avoid these risks, we already identify ourselves to our internet provider, which protects our privacy when using the network through IP numbers that serve to identify who connects to each site at a given time.

The point from which we must start: anonymity is a fundamental right

When addressing this debate, we must start from a basic fact: anonymity is a fundamental right that forms part of our right to privacy. As with other fundamental rights, the fact that someone commits abuses in exercising it does not justify the suppression of any right. Justice is there to put a stop to those who commit abuses when exercising a right, which allows us to punish the abuser and at the same time protect those who exercise a right legitimately.

The problem comes when some people try to use undemocratic shortcuts to stop crimes, and sometimes not even that, as there is even talk of ending anonymity to stop "hate", a word that is used too often to demonize opinions that are not to the liking of some. Both on the street and on the Internet, we all have the right to anonymity, and if someone abuses that right, it is the Justice that must act, and not any political body dedicated to exercising censorship, which is what some governments are doing to limit freedom of expression on social networks.

---

Photo: skigh_tv / Pexels.