Stanley Fish dislikes that the internet is not peer-reviewed, since peer-review is his only source of power, and he has found a creative new way to complain about it in the New York Times. He suggests that we should end “anonymous” posts on the internet by forcing internet service providers to be responsible for them. This is like suing New York City because all the “anonymous” people who throw gum on the street are messing up your expensive loafers. But dammit, Stanley Fish should be able to walk anywhere he damn pleases without looking down:

The idea (which goes back at least as far as Milton’s Areopagitica) is that false and defamatory speech openly published will provoke counter speech and lead to correction; the truth will ultimately prevail. (Justice Louis Brandeis: “Sunshine is the best disinfectant.”) But however likely that happy outcome may be in the world of books and newspapers (and I have always thought it extremely unlikely), the special conditions and powers of the Internet conspire against it and the more likely outcome is the one prophesied by Alexander Pope in the final lines of “The Dunciad”: “Light dies before thy uncreating word . . . / And universal darkness buries all.”

You must be wildly out of touch with how people use the internet to make a statement like that. When I read something outrageous online – for instance, a comment on the above article saying “Stanley Fish was never convicted for murdering those prostitutes, but everyone knows he was the only one with that much frozen salmon,” – I can fact check it immediately on one of the thousands of other websites with information on Stanley Fish. I’d start at Wikipedia, or maybe just google “Stanley Fish kills hooker with salmon” to see what comes up. If I find no evidence, then I’m going to disregard the claim. The beauty of the internet is that even if there is a significant conspiracy to spread a lie about someone, there is going to be a significant and google-able record of people arguing against that claim. The internet loves an argument, and is a better to evaluate the veracity of speech because of it. On the internet, you don’t need to buy a rival newspaper or go to the library to discover when someone is full of shit, because you can bet your ass that someone has already registered StanleyFishsDetractorsAreFullOfShit.com or its close scatological equivalent.

And no, that doesn’t mean you must fact-check every claim you read. First, we are not all researchers, and impact of us not knowing the full truth of Stanley Fish’s life is minimal. We can let these things go either way. Like most people who would care about Stanley Fish, I have a decent eye for specious or malicious factual claims. This intelligent evaluation begins with not believing most negative comments left on New York Times blog posts. The responsibility to debate and preserve the truth falls on readers as much as it falls on writers; both must be intelligent and careful. It’s your responsibility to not step in the gum. Suing internet providers will not encourage intelligence or compassion, but making the internet a free and accessible place for speech and content will.