Counterpoint: There is value in anonymity

This letter to the editor appeared in the November 28, 2007 edition of the Delaware State News on page 8. It appears to be a direct counterpoint to another letter to the editor (posted in its entirety here). My personal views are more in line with this author's. Maybe he will chime in and give his thoughts since he beat me to the punch in the paper.

There is Value in Anonymity
Andrew Alea, Dover, Delaware

Having followed the growth of internet communications, I read with interest Judson Bennett's letter ("Require bloggers to name themselves," Nov. 22). I, too, wonder how effective and influential anonymous speech or this "blogging phenomenon" can be. One conclusion is certain: there is value in anonymity.

In exercising my "worldwide expressions of opinion on the Internet," I respectfully disagree with Mr. Bennett's written points, particularly with his general belief that all anonymous commentary represents cowardice. Granted, some anonymous comments are inflammatory and generally uneducated. Others reflect more reasoned thought and value. In the end, all are merely exercises in public speech. Whether they are in so-called "anonymous Delawarean" blogs or by Delawareans or other citizens in anonymous or signed comments (either printed or online), the comments are afforded protection under the First Amendment.

I am neither going to attempt to give a history lesson on the freedom of speech, or give as an example the eighteenth century papers, published under anonymous pseudonyms, that received mass public attention in support or against ratification of the U.S. Constitution. Certainly Mr. Bennett did not mean to include those persons as "gutless phonies," although I am sure his position existed back then as well. Rather, I will simply quote from the U.S. Supreme Court in McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission to support my point of why his view is too narrow: "The decision in favor of anonymity may be motivated by fear of economic or official retaliation, by concern about social ostracism, or merely by a desire to preserve as much of one's privacy as possible. Whatever the motivation may be, at least in the field of literary endeavor, the interest in having anonymous works enter the marketplace of ideas unquestionably outweighs any public interest in requiring disclosure as a condition of entry."

Mr. Bennett's efforts at creating a more productive discourse by prohibiting free speech in these new "literary endeavors," while perfectly within his right to do so, misses the point behind the practice. Signing your name to something does not equate to legitimacy any more than by using a pseudonym. Any reader of online commentary recognizes the value differences in commentaries that are fraudulent, libelous, or otherwise uninformed and spiteful with those that are not. At the very least, if Mr. Bennett (or anyone else) is offended by or disagrees with a published comment, he should post the counterpoint on the same forum, which should publish it. Otherwise, the public has only one opinion and Mr. Bennett's hope for a "level of true legitimacy and a high standard that would be honorable and respected" has no hope of existing.

The point of anonymous free speech, according to McIntire, is to protect "unpopular individuals from retaliation-and their ideas from suppression-at the hand of an intolerant society." Mandating disclosure, as Mr. Bennett proposes, overlooks the value of anonymity.

Tags: andrew alea blogging letter, anonymous speech protected in delaware