The key point, I think, is accountability (or at least the perception thereof). For the sake of comparison and clarity, let's define "John Doe" as someone who is totally anonymous and "alias" as a name that at least some people may be capable of tracing to a known entity. The point here is that the John Doe can't be economically harmed because no one, by definition, knows who to harm. The person using the alias would still have to prove people were able to connect him with his words and then harmed him, but at least, which was your point, it is theoretically possible.
There is one very interesting wrinkle I can think of. Suppose I, under a John Doe (meaning a name that only I know is really me), become a stock picking guru. Without getting into details, I am able to profit handsomely from this. Now suppose a group of people start accusing me of being a convicted felon who has served time for securities fraud. I assure them this is a total lie but some people still decide to play it safe and abandon me and very clearly say it is because of what I have defined as libel. Can I sue the perpetrator? Somehow, I would think so, but then I'd be contradicting what I said earlier. Oops!
- Jeff |
