BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Defaulting would cause chaos in Greece

It is not necessarily true that the whole banking sector in Greece would collapse. Given that the default would be orderly and take place within the context of the European Union, the ECB and European Commission would still provide substantial liquidity aid for Greek banks. Moreover it is not true that a devaluation of domestic currency necessarily leads to high inflation – this was not the case, for example, when Britain exited the European Exchange-rate Mechanism in 1992 and pursued a devaluation policy of the British Pound. [1] Lastly, evidence of recent governments that have defaulted suggests that even though some of the harms the opposition refer to may actualise, recovery generally follows fairly quickly, as was the case with Argentina, South Korea and Indonesia. [2] [1] Ruparel, Raoul and Persson, Mats: “Better off Out? The short-term options for Greece inside and outside of the euro”, June 2012, Open Europe, 2012 http://www.openeurope.org.uk/Content/Documents/Pdfs/Greece_better_off_out.pdf [2]  Becker, Garry:  “Should Greece Exit the Euro Zone?”, The Becker-Posner Blog, 20.5.2012, http://www.becker-posner-blog.com/2012/05/should-greece-exit-the-euro-zone-becker.html
Governments and corporations have been complicit in an effective ‘privatization of language’.

Recent developments in IP legislation, particularly in the UK, have given corporations a carte blanche with regards to protecting their claim on associations with events they are sponsoring. The Olympics, for example, has required vastly more investment from the taxpayer than from any sponsor[i] [ii] and yet those very taxpayers have been prevented from using associations with the event to their advantage. The build-up to the games saw the international media full of stories of small businesses and others banned from using the logo or name of the games for their own advantage[iii]. Sponsors may have ploughed in millions but the taxpayers has invested billions, many of them will see precious little return on that investment and this is exacerbated by the official sponsors buying those terms. Effectively government has conspired with corporations to own chunks of language which morally, linguistically and financially can be said to belong to the public. Nobody would challenge the right of sponsors to proudly promote their bought association with an event they are sponsoring and to use all of the means at their disposal to declare that association to the world, which they have done. However, there is a world of difference between the positive right to proclaim a particular association and the negative right to prevent anyone else from proclaiming theirs. Of course sponsorship should provide bragging rights and privileged access but that is a world away from buying the silence of others. [i] London 2012 Olympic Sponsors List: Who Are They And What Have They Paid? Simon Rogers. The Guardian. 19 July 2012. [ii] London Olympics Could Cost Taxpayer $17Bn. Fred Drier. Forbes Magazine. 10 March 2012. [iii] Even Sausage Rings Are Put on The Chopping Block. Jere Longman. New York Times. 24 July 2012.
Those unable to respond will be worst hit

Smaller businesses and other organisations see their freedom of expression worst hit by laws that prevent them from associating themselves in any way with major events, to the detriment of their communities. Free speech is not relative or conditional and certainly should not be determined on the basis of the thickness of someone’s chequebook. In this regard, freedom of information is a very real issue. Those organisations without access to huge legal departments are hardest hit, further disadvantaging them against corporations who can already outspend them on advertising. Free speech means that in the world of words and ideas, at least, there is an even playing field and undermining that runs against a sense of natural justice. Sponsors are simply using this to increase an already fairly unfair advantage; many people supported Britain’s bid for the games on the basis that it would offer great benefits to local businesses, legislation restricting their ability to use their geographical and cultural association with the event make that pledge look extremely hollow. One of the noticeable failings of the Games is just how little positive impact they have had for small business in East London where most of the events are being held added to this, 62% of small businesses think the games will have no impact while 25% believe the impact will be negative[i] and business outside the capital have actually suffered as a result[ii]. The major sponsors already went into this situation with massive advantages over small traders who had the sole advantage of the geographical proximity to the events. The idea that, for example, Coca Cola can prevent street vendors in the Olympic Village from selling Pepsi is absurd. Coke isn’t planning to make their money back on direct sales of their product around venues but on the prestige it brings them as a global brand. [i] FSB News Release, ‘Olympics legacy will be damp squib for small firms’, Federation of Small Businesses, 9 January 2011. [ii] Now Retailers Outside London Suffer From Olympics Effect. Simon Neville. The Guardian. 3 August 2012.
This creates a dangerous precedent

The idea that corporations can, effectively, buy words and phrases set a pernicious precedent similar to their ability to own genes. There are certain things that, self-evidently, are the property of the people. They are held in common and in trust for future generations. They cannot be sold because they are not owned. Attempts to evade that reality have, generally, been seen as pernicious by history – even where they have not been rectified. European settlers laying claim to land used by indigenous people would be one example. Recent attempts by pharmaceutical companies to purchase genes[i] and now other Corporations to own chunks of the language – or at least rent them from governments and NGOs that also don’t own them in the first place - seems to come in a similar spirit. Who can reasonably be said to own, for example, the phrase “London 2012”? If anybody could make such a claim, Londoners living in the city in 2012 would seem to be the obvious answer. However, there is a far more satisfying answer that nobody does. The London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Act 2006 extends the scope of protection given to the Olympic and Paralympic Games by making it an infringement of the “London Olympic Association Right” (LOAR) to do anything which is “likely to create in the public mind an association” with the London Olympics[ii].[iii] The fact that this is happening in relation to the Olympics makes the precedent particularly troubling as the idea that the Games are for all mankind is at the heart of the Olympic ideal. It is an aspiration of our common humanity and all that entails. If chunks of that are for sale then it raises very real concerns about what else could go under the hammer. [i] Noonan, Kevin ed., ‘This House would allow the patenting of genes’, Debatabase, 2011. [ii] International Trademark Association. [iii] Davies, Malcolm, ‘Intellectual Property and the London 2012 Olympic Games - What businesses need to know’, Intellectual Property Office, November 2009.
Sponsors pay for the privilege

Sponsors pay an enormous amount of money to support events such as the Olympics, it is only fair that they can protect themselves against ‘ambush advertising’ by competitors. This is an issue of simple financial reality. Although there have been some unpleasant – and probably unwise – accounts of smaller traders getting caught up in the crossfire, and opposition concedes that should be rectified in future events – the purpose of this kind of legislation and the regulations  it spawns is to prevent direct competitors of sponsors finding ways to ambush the event[i]. The issue of concern is not really a lone athletics fan wandering into the final of the Men’s 100m with a can of Pepsi. The intention is clearly to prevent representatives of that company standing outside the venue handing out thousands of free T-shirts. There have been some problems with the implementation of this legislation but the principle remains sound and serves to the benefit of all. The alternative would be both Coke and Pepsi reps handing out T-shirts outside and the organisers of the event not getting a penny from either. It is only fair that those who pay the piper to a certain extent get to call the tune. [i] London 2012: Coe Sparks Olympic Sponsorship Row. Shiv Malik. The Guardian. 20 July 2012.
There is a clear difference between protecting commercial interests in terms of association with a sponsored event and ‘owning words’.

It would be both illegal and impractical for a sponsor to ‘buy’ the word “London”. The rules make it clear that they are not attempting to infringe on, for example, the right of journalists to report the Games nor on people to discuss them. A simple Google search will bring up thousands of articles – like this one – using the Olympic rings, the phrase “London 2012” and many of the others words and phrases that concern Proposition. At no point have the news organisations concerned been asked to pay. There is clearly a world of difference between an existing magazine running a feature about the event – indeed several features – and the creation of a one-off special publication stuffed full of advertising for a direct competitor of the event. An equivalent would be paying for a meal in a restaurant only to see that everyone else was eating for free. That is the infringement of natural justice. Sponsors have paid to have a certain association with the Games and it is both fair and reasonable that they should get that association in a way that does not allow their competitors to get a free lunch. It is ridiculous to suggest that this is tantamount to ‘owning words’ as Proposition has done. To start with the preclusions cited here are temporary, additionally they are only in reference to this event. It would seem to be in everyone’s interest for sponsorship of sport and the arts to continue, for that to happen, they sponsors need to get something in return.
Sponsorship is necessary to host major sporting events

It is in the interests of communities and countries to attract sponsorship for events on this scale, as with other areas, such as transport, that requires a little sacrifice. Hosting major events, inevitably, requires some degree of inconvenience for those living in the area trying to go about their daily lives. These inconveniences are tolerated because there are wider benefits. In the instance of the Olympics, a core part of the initial bid was the assumption that hosting them would produce long term benefits for the city in the form of tourism[i] and regeneration.[ii] Whether that proves to be the case remains to be seen although, given the number of historic venues used for events[iii], it doesn’t seem unreasonable to suppose that it may be likely. To ensure these future benefits, there is an understanding that there will be some disruption caused and some inconvenience, allowing sponsors a degree of autonomy is comparable to that inconvenience. LOCOG argues without the sponsors “investment the Games wouldn’t happen.”[iv] Without the Games the future benefits wouldn’t happen – quite the reverse if they simply fell apart after the bid had been won. The smaller traders who feel aggrieved now are exactly the people who will benefit for years to come as people make use of the new facilities or see London as a tourist destination they would not otherwise have considered. It’s a simple quid pro quo. [i] Woodman, Peter, ‘London 2012: Olympic boost to retailers and tourism new figures show’, The Independent, 6 August 2012. [ii] ‘Regeneration and economic growth Olympics legacy’, Communities and Local Government, accessed 9th August 2012 [iii] London Olympics: Some Events Set Amid Historic City Landmarks. LA Times. 27 July 2012. [iv] London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Limited, ‘Rule 40 Guidelines’, July 2011, p.6.
Governments and corporations have been complicit in an effective ‘privatization of language’.

It is a massive overstatement to say that recent events are equivalent to the privatization of language. Were people to be charged every time they used the word “Olympic”, say, that would look like the privatisation of language, this is merely sponsors protecting the association with an event that they paid for in the first place. Additionally, to portray this as a conspiracy raises the question of, “To what end?” Government works with major organisations as partners all the time, precisely because it saves the taxpayer money to do so. Although the taxpayer has footed a significant bill for the games, it would have been that much larger without sponsors and it is the taxpayer, not the sponsors, who receive the infrastructural benefits, which is what they paid for. The sponsors receive promotion for their brands, which is what they paid for. It’s a simple quid pro quo. Other companies trying to muscle in on the act have paid for nothing – and that is just what they should get.[i]. [i] London 2012. Olympic Legacy Website.
Those unable to respond will be worst hit

It is important not to confuse two issues. The ongoing ‘Battle of the Brands’ between, for example, Coke and Pepsi or McDonalds and Burger King are the focus of the sponsors. It really seems unlikely that the directors of McDonalds lose a lot of sleep over competition from a family butcher in Dorset. The problem has come because the butcher is caught in the crossfire. It’s worth noting that that butcher has received the sort of media coverage that money really can’t buy, so he’s probably not complaining too much. It may have been wise to draft the legislation so that it only applied to companies of a certain size but, in reality, it only affects large-scale efforts to circumvent the rules.[i] [i] London 2012: Organisers clarify rules on branded clothing for spectators. BBC website. 20 July 2012.
This creates a dangerous precedent

This is clearly not the same as buying a gene as the timescales are quite different. These are not words sold off in perpetuity, neither were they previously in use by someone else as was the case with land grabs by colonizing settlers. This is a description of an event that would not have taken place without the sponsorship for the duration of that event. Both of the other examples are of the permanent acquisition of something that was previously communal property.
Sponsors pay for the privilege

It would be nice to think that, at least at some level, sponsors offer sponsorship out of a desire to give something back to the customers who create vast profits for them but perhaps that is naïve. Ultimately, however, this exercise in ownership has been counter-productive. It would be difficult to imagine an ‘ambush advertising’ action that would come close to inflicting the damage on corporate reputations that the bad press surrounding this issue has generated. From the point of view of sponsors, this was a real example of the best getting in the way of the good. The net result has been that nobody has benefitted as they could have if the sponsors had not been so set on exclusivity of association.
There is a clear difference between protecting commercial interests in terms of association with a sponsored event and ‘owning words’.

There are examples of Journalists running foul the Olympics and its partners. The most famous being Guy Adams, whose Twitter account was suspended following criticism of NBCUniversal’s coverage of the event. Although NBC are a media partner rather than a sponsor, they paid $1.8bn for the media rights and the principles of belligerent protectionism would still seem to apply[i]. Even if it is just for the duration of the Games, even if it is for one day of them, or one minute of them, this would still be an attack on the freedom of speech of the individuals concerned. By its nature, freedom of speech is indivisible, we either have it or we don’t; the pretence that it is possible to say that ‘people are free to say whatever they like, apart from this’ completely misses that point. [i] Journalists Twitter Account Restored After Suspension. BBC Website. 30 July 2012.
Sponsorship is necessary to host major sporting events

All of the other inconveniences mentioned by Opposition have been mitigated as much as possible by the organisers. For example local government and transport bodies have been providing advice and encouragement on arranging different routes and minimizing the need to travel at all for months in advance of the games. In this matter however, the organizers and elected officials have come down firmly on the side of sponsors. The very inconveniences outlined by Opposition are already hurting some traders as people choose to work from home or take the opportunity to leave the city altogether. Denying those traders every opportunity to recoup the lost revenue from their regular clientele is, as a result, doubly unfair.
Limiting ability of oppressed individuals to seek out help and community.

Small reduction in ability to seek out help and community outweighed by a large reduction in hate speech. Anonymity is not essential to seeking out help and community. The internet is a large and expansive place, meaning that if an individual posts on an obscure site, people that they know in real life are very likely to see it. Even having your real name attached is unlikely to single you out unless you have a particularly distinctive name. Anonymity adds very little to their ability to seek out this help and community. Additionally, anonymity is frequently used as a tool to spread hate speech,[1] which the people this point is concerned with are the primary victims of. Even if a lack of anonymity means a marginal reduction in their ability to seek out a supportive community, this is a worthwhile sacrifice for a significant reduction in the amount of hatred directed at them. [1] ‘Starting Points for Combating Hate Speech Online’. British Institute of Human Rights. URL: http://act4hre.coe.int/rus/content/download/28301/215409/file/Starting%20points.pdf
Reducing the extent to which large and powerful organisations can be criticised.

Protest of this kind is less meaningful. When an organisation such as this is criticised only by anonymous individuals, who are likely to be difficult to contact or learn more about, it is less likely to lead to any kind of long-term meaningful resistance. In the case of Anonymous and the Church of Scientology, there have been no notable acts of resistance to the Church of Scientology other than Anonymous. Anonymous resistance makes other kinds of resistance less likely to happen, and rarely leads to significant change or action.
Limiting ability to experiment with identity.

Self-improvement through an alias or false identity is unlikely to lead to genuine self-improvement. When individuals have multiple identities, they may think of them as distinct from one another, and are thus unlikely to transfer self-improvement from one to another. For example, a recovering addict may only have a renewed attitude in their online identity, and not in real life where it is more important. This is unlikely to be beneficial, and may be actively harmful in terms of limiting the improvement of real life identities.
Reducing cyberbullying.

When internet anonymity is used for bullying, it can make the situation much worse. Firstly, perpetrators are much less likely to hold back or be cautious as they are less concerned with the possibility of being caught. This means the bullying is likely to be more intense than when it is done in real life.[1] Additionally, for victims of cyberbullying, being unable to tell who your harasser is, or even how many there are can be particularly distressing.[2] Anonymous posting being significantly less available takes away the particularly damaging anonymous potential of cyberbullying, and allows cyberbullying to be more effectively dealt with. [1] ‘Traditional Bullying v. Cyberbullying’. CyberBullying, Google Sites. URL: https://sites.google.com/site/cyberbullyingawareness/traditional-bullying-vs-cyberbullying ‘The Problem of Cyberbullies’ Anonymity’. Leo Burke Academy. URL: http://www.lba.k12.nf.ca/cyberbullying/anonymity.htm [2] ‘Cyberbullying’. Netsafe. URL: http://www.cyberbullying.org.nz/teachers/
Reducing hate speech.

Openly racist, sexist, or otherwise discriminatory comments made through public forums are much more likely when made anonymously, as people feel they are unlikely to see any consequences for voicing their hateful opinions.[1] This leads firstly to a propagation of these views in others, and a higher likelihood of attacks based on this hate, as seeing a particular view more often makes people feel it is more legitimate.[2] More importantly, it causes people from the targeted groups to feel alienated or unwelcome in particular places due to facets of their identity that are out of their control, and all people have a right not to be discriminated against for reasons such as these. The proposed policy would enormously reduce the amount of online hate speech posted as people would be too afraid to do it. Although not exactly the same a study of abusive and slanderous posts on Korean forums in the six months following the introduction of their ban on anonymity found that such abusive postings dropped 20%.[3] Additionally it would allow governments to pursue that which is posted under the same laws that all other speech is subject to in their country. [1] ‘Starting Points for Combating Hate Speech Online’. British Institute of Human Rights. URL: http://act4hre.coe.int/rus/content/download/28301/215409/file/Starting%20points.pdf [2] ‘John Gorenfield, Moon the Messiah, and the Media Echo Chamber’. Daily Kos. URL: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/06/24/34812/-John-Gorenfeld-Moon-the-Messiah-and-the-Media-Echo-Chamber [3] ‘Real Name Verification Law on the Internet: A Poison or Cure for Privacy?’, Carnegie Melon University, http://weis2011.econinfosec.org/papers/Real%20Name%20Verification%20Law%20on%20the%20Internet%20-%20A%20Poison%20or%20Cu.pdf
Reducing currently illegal activity.

Internet anonymity is very useful for planning and organising illegal activity, mostly buying and selling illegal goods, such as drugs, firearms, stolen goods, or child pornography, but also, in more extreme cases, for terrorism or assassinations. This is because it can be useful in making plans and advertisements public, thus enabling wider recruitment and assistance, while at the same time preventing these plans from being easily traced back to specific individuals.[1] For example, the website Silk Road openly offers users the opportunity to buy and sell illegal drugs. Sales on this site alone have double over the course of six months, hitting $1.7million per month.[2] This policy makes it easier for the police to track down the people responsible for these public messages, should they continue. If anonymity is still used, it will be significantly easier to put legal pressure on the website and its users, possibly even denying access to it. If anonymity is not used, obviously it is very easy to trace illegal activity back to perpetrators. In the more likely event that they do not continue, it at least makes organising criminal activities considerably more difficult, and less likely to happen. This means the rule of law will be better upheld, and citizens will be kept safer.[3] [1] Williams, Phil, ‘Organized Crime and Cyber-Crime: Implications for Business’, CERT, 2002, http://www.cert.org/archive/pdf/cybercrime-business.pdf‎ p.2 [2] ‘Silk Road: the online drug marketplace that officials seem powerless to stop.’ The Guardian. URL: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/mar/22/silk-road-online-drug-marketplace [3] ‘Do dark networks aid cyberthieves and abusers?’ BBC News. URL: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-22754061