Jeff Kosseff: Why Anonymous Speech Is Good—and Constitutional
The author of the definitive history of Section 230 is back with a controversial new book, The United States of Anonymous.

In 2019, Jeff Kosseff published The Twenty-Six Words that Created the Internet, the definitive "biography" of the controversial law known as Section 230. Part of the 1996 Communications Decency Act, Section 230 grants broad immunity to websites and internet service providers from legal actions based on user-generated content. Section 230 enabled the participatory nature of the web, from YouTube videos to Yelp reviews to basically all of Twitter. It's the reason why Reason can't be sued for libelous or defamatory content posted in our comments section (though the authors of such comments can be).
Now Kosseff, who teaches cybersecurity law at the United States Naval Academy, is back with The United States of Anonymous: How the First Amendment Shaped Online Speech. His new book looks at the history of and controversy surrounding anonymous speech and activism.
Before becoming a law professor, Kosseff worked as a journalist at The Oregonian, where he was a finalist for a Pulitzer Prize and a winner of the George Polk Award. Nick Gillespie talks with him about why he thinks anonymous speech is generally a good thing but getting harder to maintain, why Democrats and Republicans alike keep freaking out over Section 230, and how his past as a journalist informs his interest in protecting freedom of speech and assembly.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
and how his past as a journalist informs his interest in protecting freedom of speech and assembly.
So that would make him unique in his industry.
I was looking for this information too.thank you very much
Imagine if the Federalist Papers weren't anonymous.
Well, there would certainly be fewer of them to study.....
And we would need to memorize some different founding fathers....
Or not....
That headline...am I the only one who thought WTF? Was somebody suggesting anonymous speech could somehow be unconstitutional? Like, illegal at the constitutional level???!!
I was surprised to hear a supreme court justice questioned the value of anonymous speech...seeing as Common Sense was published anonymously. Not only does anonymous speech help protect the individual it sometimes adds weight to what is said as the thoughts behind it have to stand on its own merit. Unfortunately, it loses that value as people cease to be able to think critically.
Over the last couple years we've seen great examples of why anonymous speech is important. 1 - so you don't get canceled, 2 - so your critics can't just call you racist.
Spoken like a true racist
But was I the only one to scratch my head at that headline and think someone was alleging the US Constitution actually had some clause prohibiting anonymous speech? Like, not just a lack of protection, but actual prohibition?
Anonymous speech is for cowards and crooks.
Standing up for what we say is why we have free speech.
I didn’t expect anything better from you.
Good.
Anonymous speech has its pros and cons.
Pro: it can protect controversial, unpopular speech.
Con: it can also protect defamatory, illegal speech.
In the context of electoral speech:
Pro: since speech is anonymous, one can be more inclined to express one's authentic, uninhibited speech, thus leading to a greater revelation of the authentic will of the people.
Con: since speech is anonymous, one can never be sure where a candidate's base of support really lies - with his/her constituents? Or somewhere else?
I didn’t know you were anti-Biden.
Well I certainly didn't vote for him.
I am not sure what one has to do with the other however.
What constitutes illegal speech?
What does it really matter where a candidates support comes from? It's just noise until ballots are cast.
What constitutes illegal speech?
Well, based on current doctrine, True Threats. Also, potentially, defamatory speech. Also, more broadly, potentially, publishing classified secrets or child porn.
What does it really matter where a candidates support comes from? It's just noise until ballots are cast.
Well, some voters seem to care whether the support that a candidate receives, particularly the financial support, comes from within the district itself.
Funny how you advocate anonymous speech, yet still have a byline on your article.