Font size: 
The declared reason for this "real name rule" is to clean up the Internet and prevent irresponsible slandering and railing. But in my eyes, its real intention is to set up Internet police and goons, who can easily eliminate those who spread opinions that differ from the authorities'. In other words, this rule arises from a perceived need to suppress public opinion rather than from a sense of cultural responsibility.
We can imagine what it would be like if everyone's real name or public position were declared online: people would be restricted by surveillance mechanisms, social and cultural taboos, interpersonal relations, and so on. This is especially true in a country that lacks freedom of speech and a healthy legal system. As a result people would be highly discouraged from speaking the truth, fearing revenge.
The anonymous system, to a large extent, eliminates such restrictions and reduces the possibility of revenge. This enables the truth to be revealed on the Internet, as there is no need to lie. Many people express their real opinions and real selves online -- even their dark side, which they don't feel comfortable to show at other times. Of course, the most real is not necessarily the best, let alone the "cleanest." Among the numerous anonymous comments and postings we often find dirty words or uncivilized slandering and railing. The character of anonymous comments is that they include both good and bad. So from a negative point of view, the lack of surveillance of anonymous comments can indeed result in irresponsible speech or even rubbish.
But we have to admit that this is the cost we must pay for the freedom of speech. In fact, there is no "best" but only a "better" system. In implementing a system we must choose the one with the least disadvantages. The most likely result of the "real name rule" is that many people will no longer dare to speak the truth or will simply stay silent. This result would be much worse than the clamor of all voices and the mixture of good and bad content.
In addition, we need to pay particular attention to the special media environment in China. Nowadays China's media keep mentioning the irreplaceable role of the Internet in exposing major problems in society. Credit goes to the anonymous system for this. The media also disclose the fact that authorities at all levels often seek revenge against journalists who expose social problems. This seriously harms press freedom.
Under this situation, the biggest advantage of Internet anonymity is that it expands free expression, inhibits authorities' interference with freedom of speech, and reduces the possibility of revenge. Thanks to the democratic and equal character of the Internet, underprivileged people can find a way to expose social problems and express their dissatisfaction. Also it provides a channel for conscientious intellectuals to raise their voices for justice.
If the "real name rule" is implemented, and all comments are checked by authorities in order to guard against "harmful information," the question will arise as to how to define harmful information? Will it be defined by the examiners of the authorities? For instance, in the eyes of the corrupt officials in Shanxi province, the truth about the illegal kilns run by slave labor and exposed by the media was harmful information. In the eyes of some officials who worked in Beijing during the SARS epidemic, any unauthorized reports about SARS were considered harmful information.
There are uncountable real examples like these in China. This is the fundamental reason we must insist that Internet anonymity be safeguarded. If we empower certain people or organizations to inspect others' opinions and speech, we cannot avoid the misuse of that power. This is similar to ecological protection -- if we ask the gardener to kill the weeds, we cannot guarantee that everything he kills is a real weed; it is possible that he might kill everything that appears to him to be a weed.
Moreover, why are we so afraid of Internet rubbish? Can't most Internet users recognize rubbish, or are they all rubbish producers? This relates to another fundamental reason to protect the anonymous system -- most people are rational and can judge the quality of what they read. Through rational, free discussion the real rubbish can be removed by nonviolent means.
Actually, the imposition of the "real name rule" is a violent measure, as it is an attempt to solve a problem by force rather than through rational discussion. The 20th century German political theoretician Hannah Arendt once stated that using nonverbal violence in the public domain is a sign of political incompetence. The Internet "real name rule" is also a sign of political incompetence, as the Internet itself belongs to the public domain.
In conclusion, we do not need an Internet cleaner sent by the higher authorities to clean up the so-called Internet rubbish.
--
(Tao Dongfeng is a professor in the Chinese Department of Capital Normal University in Beijing. He is also editor-in-chief of the scholarly periodical "Culture Research." This article is translated and edited from the Chinese by UPI Asia Online. ©Copyright Tao Dongfeng.)
