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

Point: Require Bloggers to Name Themselves

This commentary/letter to the editor was printed in the November 22, 2007 edition of the Delaware State News on page 7. In a two sentence summary, Judson Bennett argues that the only way for blogging to achieve a level of true legitimacy is for bloggers to identify themselves in their posts and commentary. According to Mr. Bennett, any anonymous blog or post (by virtue of its anonymity) is crap. I disagree, mainly because the implication of his position lumps this blog into the mix, despite my attempts at insightful commentary.

Consequently, I'll gladly debate the merits of this issue, and please feel free to post a comment for me to respond to if it's really a bigger issue than I think. Similarly, I'll gladly provide a link to his blog on this blog (turnabout, however, is fair play). Further commentary (although not the actual letter) is posted on this blog.

Require Bloggers to Name Themselves
Judson Bennett, Lewis, Delaware

The blogging phenomenon has reached a whole new level, and it is indeed addictive. It's a worldwide expression of opinion on the Internet, and it is interesting. I like it myself, and I do definitely participate. This remarkable situation definitely gives folks a venue to share opinions. However, I wonder how effective these venues are in changing people's minds, or if indeed they are truly influential?

The owners of some local Delaware blogs, Delaware folks like Dave Burris, Mike Mathews, Dana Garrett, Jason and others, are actually pure editorialists-interesting, amusing, irritating and provocative. They are much like weekly columnists in newspapers, with the exception of the comment sections. Herein lies the huge rub for me. When I write something, I do it as me-Judson Bennett. When I comment on someone else's blog, I do it as me, Judson Bennett. You know who I am and I take real responsibility for what I say.

Frankly, I hate published anonymity, especially when people take mean-spirited shots at others or about any significant issue. Those who write anything using a "handle" are cowards. Many of these people are, in reality, terrified, insignificant little pipsqueaks who make themselves feel 10 feet tall when they can say whatever they want, while hiding behind a pseudonym. I equate these jerks to some weak sister who gets behind the wheel of a car and suddenly becomes an omnipotent aggressive driver. Otherwise, they would be terrified to open their mouths, because in reality, they do not have the courage of their convictions.

When anybody writes something, they should be required to use their real names or not be permitted to blog. It's that way when someone writes a letter to the editor in a newspaper. The person's name, address and phone number are required by the paper before the comments are published. People who speak or write anonymously are fake, what they say is fake, and it should not ever be given any value or even be presented in the first place. In order to make blogging reach a true level of legitimacy, real names should be required in the comment section.

The bottom line is that those of you who comment, using your real names, are indeed courageous and legitimate citizens who deserve a lot of credit for speaking out. The rest of you handle-users are nothing more than gutless phonies who pump yourself up by throwing darts from the darkness. I challenge the blog owners of the world to make your operations absolutely significant by requiring those who log in to provide their real names before commenting. Indeed, then, blogging would achieve a level of true legitimacy and a high standard that would be honorable and respected.

Tags: judson bennett blogging letter, blogs should not be anonymous