The Wardman Wire

There’s a nasty little trolling campaign going on against Pippa Wagstaff, of Miss Wagstaff presents. That’s the second contributor here coming under different attacks in about 3 weeks from completely different sources, so I thought I’d make a note here.

There a couple of lengthy quotes included in this article for completeness, that you can skip without losing the thread.

Allegations to Facebook

First of all there were several complaints to Facebook in the first half of July that the P Wagstaff account was a “fake”, and Facebook acted without consulting Pippa first to close down her account, on the basis of these allegations that it was “fake”. I wrote about this here .

The problem here is that Facebook operates a very strange policy about which accounts get closed down. As I said recently on this site and on the radio, these policies allowed them to close down the account of Steve Webb MP lfor being fake a few months ago, while Ghengis Kahn (of the Totalitarian Party) has an account that is still live.

Comments of the Troll

At least one Worm-Troll is out again, *after* Pippa had replied in full here on August 1st, an anonymous commenter styling themselves “pippa la ropa interior” (”la ropa interior” is Spanish for “underclothes”) came up with the following over at Peter Black AM’s blog on August 8th:

The problem I have wth blooging is the anonymity. Like Pippa Wagstaff for examplw.

This person(s) blogs anon - spread malicious garbage that cannot be challenged. Readers dont know if ‘her’/their claims are genuine or not. Then when ’she’/they is/are bannned or blocked, ’she’/they expect(s) people to feel outraged about it all?

This is where blogging REALLY fails. Everything is unsubtantiated. Libel recourse is VERY difficult.

For people like you who are public figures, its fine - but for the rest of the open blogs like Pippa, like Guido - they are scum of the earth.

If there is God, I hope one day he seeks re-dress this issue on behalf of us all, in his inimatable way
# posted by Anonymous pippa la ropa interior : 12:18 PM

and Peter replied:

Pippa Wagstaff can speak for herself but she says that is her own name and I have no reason to disbelieve her. Is Pippa La Ropa Interior your real name?
# posted by Blogger Peter Black : 12:37 PM

and again from Mr or Mrs Troll:

The point i am trying is obviously FAR too subtle!!!!

Of course my name is not Pippa la Ropa Interior - that’s precisely the point I am trying to make here!

The point about anonymity is central to the blogging issue and why it spiralling out of control and the libel laws should apply.

When you say: “Pippa Wagstaff can speak for herself but she says that is her own name and I have no reason to disbelieve her.”

What a bizarre thing to say? Pippa Wagstaff could be several people writing one blog - you have absolutely no idea do you?

And that is precisely the point! We dont know!

We live in democracy in which people/groups do NOT have to hide away. We have free speech. I could understand scum-blogs proliferating in China - but not here. Therefore, the motives MUST be suspect - and in Pippa’s the motives are DEFINITELY suspect :-)))

Scum-blogs like Pippa and Guido actually UNDERMINE freedom and liberty - they dont enhance it AT ALL!

Yours in blissful, unsubstantiated and recklessly malicious anonymity — Pippa la Ropa Interior
# posted by Anonymous pippa la ropa interior : 2:37 PM

Anonymity and Libel

These trolls are always ironic; this one meets their own charges far better than Miss W. But it raises two questions:

1. What should our attitude be to people who don’t reveal their full identity on their blog?
2. How do libel laws apply to blogs?

Pot. Kettle. Black.

There are a whole series of problems with the comments from “pippa la ropa interior”. I’ll mention a couple, then quote my full reply.

1. The comments are pretty clearly malicious - dragging Pippa in as an “example” is a touch transparent as a tactic. Ooops-a-daisy.
2. Pippa is accused of being “anonymous”. Oooops-a-daisy. If you are going to try and throw mud around, then doing it after the person you are attacking has stated that your subsequent allegations are not true is a slightly high-risk strategy, bearing in mind that telling the truth is one of the major defences under British libel laws.
3. The commenter states that “libel laws should apply” to blogs. Oooops-a-daisy. They do apply already.
4. The commenter also states that anonymity itself is a problem. Oooops-a-daisy. Anonymity or pseudonymity is widespread across public life and the media, from politicians writing novels using pen-names and Cherie Blair using her Maiden Name professionally, to the virtually the entire Economist Magazine not carrying a byline since about 1843. A more thought-through position needed, methinks.
5. The commenter then has a go at “Scum-blogs like Pippa and Guido”. Oooops-a-daisy. Pippa publicly stated her position (linked above), and Guido can hardly be called anonymous these days.
6. The possiblility of anonymity online is largely a myth, anyway if someone goes after you seriously.

Leaving aside all the errors, there’s plenty in there that’s actionable on its own account.

My view of Anonymity

My position on pseudonymity is this:

1. Exactly the same standards should apply in the blogosphere as elsewhere in the media. This is one we need to keep reminding everybody of whenever anyone launches a broadside against “anonymous bloggers”.
2. There are certain reasonable grounds for anonymity - whistleblowing or potential threats of violence are the obvious ones, but also people who work in professions where clients may make judgements on the basis of political views. I would add the caveat that anyone taking advantage of pseudonymity should be willing to stand by everything they write if their identity is made known.
3. It is perfectly possible to maintain a consistent pseudonymous identity, using tools such as OpenID logins that cannot be easily faked by third parties. That is sufficient to present and maintain a coherent and consistent argument.
4. If anonymity in the blogosphere is to be removed, then the same must be done across the media.

The rest of this post is the comment I made in reply to Pippa la Ropa Interior, which can be skipped if you are getting tired at this point !

My view of Pippa la Ropa Interior’s comments

This is the comment I made on the post over on Peter Black’s blog. You may want to get a cup of tea at this point.

(”Cock” is a Cynical Dragon-ism that I borrowed for the occasion.)

pippa la ropa interior is a cock.

a) The libel laws *do* apply.

b) The libel climate in this country is already so vicious that we have American States introducing laws to protect their citizens from Libel Tourism.

c) The police already have God knows how many powers to intercept communications and track people down thanks to a decade of the Scare Blair Bunch.

d) Pippa Wagstaff’s blog *is* written by 3 individuals who identify themselves as such.

If they *were* the same person (or several persons) it wouldn’t make much difference since it is a blog about political arguments, which can be responded to on their merits.

e) Presumably Pippa la Ropa refuses to read i) Non-bylined newspaper editorials, ii) Novels by authors with pen names, iii) Articles by journalists with “professional” names iv) The entire Economist magazine v) Judgements by Judge Cherie Booth because she’s really called Blair etc etc etc. vi) Most of the BBC website vii) Wikipedia etc etc etc

f) The police have God knows how many powers to inspect IT records.

g)
>We live in democracy in which people/groups do NOT have to hide away. We have free speech. I could understand scum-blogs proliferating in China - but not here. Therefore, the motives MUST be suspect - and in Pippa’s the motives are DEFINITELY suspect :-)))

No.

Political views can affect your job prospects - not just for extremists such as the BNP Ballerina (remember the calls for her sacking because of her political views).

g) Removing the possibility of anonymity would actually exclude some people from political debate.

h) It is perfectly possible to have a consistent preudonymous identity - comments can be made and proved to be authentic using tools such as OpenID.

The real problem is worms who surf around making anonymous character assassinations without anything substantive to say.

Cock.

<new comment>

While I’m at it:

i) Sorry for the slight duplication in points c and f.

j) In this country the web host has co-liability for any statements that are shown to be defamatory once they know about the existence of the material. The consequence of that is that web hosts take down content when they receive a mere ALLEGATION that statements are defamatory, whether or not that is the case.

That provides a mechanism to have straight and accurate reporting removed without any proof that anything is wrong, inaccurate or defamatory.

For an object lesson in the attempted suppression of basically straight reporting look at the Dave Walker-Mark Brewer case. www.tinyurl.com/davewalker.

k) Why do you think that quite a number of political blogs (including mine) are deliberately hosted offshore? It is not to escape from libel law (which applies to the location of reading not of hosting anyway) - it is to make sure that a debate happens about published material, rather than that material being bullied off the Internet to prevent a debate.

l) You make accusations (”scum blog”) against Pippa W for being anonymous, and then make the identical accusation (”scum blog”) against Guido who is *not* anonymous. So just what do you have a problem with - anonymity or lack of it? Or is the anonymity thing a complete red herring?

m) The only potentially libellous statements on this thread look to me to be pippa la ropa interior’s statements about Pippa W.

n) I think I feel an article about Blog Anonymity coming on for tomorrow afternoon.

o) <snipped due to the family audience>

Wrapping Up

I perhaps need to post my view summarised without the example another time, but this is the guts of it.

Enough for now, I think.