Should anonymous postings be prohibited?

If someone owns a business, he could be financially affected by politicians and bureaucrats because of his beliefs. Or someone who works for a company that doesn't like his politics could have his livelihood affected. Identification would definitely inhibit a free expression of thoughts. Balloting, for example, is done secretly to protect the anonymity of one's beliefs and vote.

As far as someone being identified facilitating a more "civil" and "moral" discussion, we have all seen some named posters here and elsewhere who have had no problem using the most outrageous language and making the most scurrilous attacks against others.

The genius of the internet is that it allows everybody to participate -including those who don't want to be identified by name.

SensorG, FWIW I have also had letters to the editor published in the Blade, and come home to an answering machine filled with vauge threats from Lefties (just goes to show that there are idiots on both sides). I even received a nasty unsigned letter in the mail from some loser after one of my letters was published. It wasn't a death threat or anything serious, but it sure does give you pause, especially when you're just a nobody like me expressing an opinion. As nuts as some people get nowadays, without anonymity there's no way I would comment on nearly as much anywhere online.

I think that in most cases the benefits of anonymity online outweigh the shortcomings. Requiring names would not necessarily make make the commentary more civil. It would make the person doing the commenting an easier target for people who disagree with him or her.

It's easy for someone like Dennis Prager to say that names should be required. He has the resources to defend himself against lunatics. Most average people don't. You never know how people will react to reading something they disagree with. If you disagree and argue with me here, that's one thing. If you starting calling my house and mailing me stuff to demonstrate you know where I live, I am not amused.

We had a discussion about this subject earlier this year after Michael Miller expressed his opposition to anonymous Web writers. Miller called anonymous Web posters: electronic piss ants, impotent toilet scrubbers, attack-eunuchs, simpering bandits, and malignant vultures. Now who is being uncivil? Those wacky journalists love that whole freedom of the press thing, don't they?

And remember when that WSPD afternoon talk guy Brian Wilson said :

"... every town has a blog, and they are generally populated by Kool-Aid drinkers, mouth-breathers, has-beens, never-will-be people and so on. It's a game that means nothing. It's generally a hobby for someone to masturbate their ego anonymously."

That's good stuff.

You know, the person who wrote this townhall.com article is a radio show host like Wilson. I wonder how they feel about bringing back the Fairness Doctrine?

Some people have a selective view on freedom of speech. They want it for themselves, but they don't want others to have similar freedoms.

I'm not surprised that this anti-anonymous rhetoric is coming from a conservative site like townhall.com. After all, it's mostly Republicans who are regulating and/or trying to regulate the Internet. And you thought Republicans were for smaller government and freedoms. Bull.

Do not buy into this bilge that it's about civil versus uncivil discourse. That's a deflection tactic used to hide the real reason here, which is the people who think they are in charge want to control the Internet. Elitists like this townhall contributor believe only the professionally trained should be allowed to disseminate information to the masses.

Brian Wilson also said : "I've been in this business 40 years. They're listeners. They have no clue how this business works."

See, us 'normal' citizens are not suppose to initiate conversations, discussions, debates, and arguments. The elitists in the so-called media biz are suppose to lecture to us. Yeah, they throw out token measures of two-way conversations by receiving letters to the editor or maybe taking a few callers, but those mediums are way to limiting when compared to the Web message board/blog world.

Back to the townhall.com article that started this thread, the writer said: "Websites should insist on listing names and cities of those who post comments, just as newspapers and magazines do."

Or else government will create laws forcing Web sites to demand posters give personal information before posting content. And here's a tip for fascists who agree with this townhall article: The Internet is not the same thing as a newspaper and a magazine.

What frightens people like this townhall contributor and most in the lamestream media is the fact that it's so damn easy today for any slug citizen like me to manage a Web site for nothing or for only a few bucks a month and publish content that anyone in the world with an Internet connection could read. Can you run a magazine, a newspaper, or a radio station on $10 a month and have the same potential reach as a Web site?

In only a few minutes, anyone can publish to the world by creating a free blog account at Blogger.com or Wordpress.com, and people like this townhall contributor can't accept the fact that this much freedom is available to the masses. Ask the Chinese government about this.

People like this townhall writer have the attitude of 'How dare a normal citizen create information without our permission.' It's not about civil vs uncivil discourse. It's about people like this townhall.com writer wanting to be the gatekeepers of all information. 'They' have lost control. 'They' want to stifle free speech and freedom of thought. A law already exists to deal with libel content, but that's not what this discussion is about. This townhall.com contributor wants to control what you say on the Web and how you say it.

People who believe what this townhall article says should not be trusted. I say, if your feelings get a little hurt by some coarse language on a Web site, well, read something else like the back of a cereal box and leave the rest of us alone.

It's a matter of choice. I'm pro-choice. If a person wants to give his or her personal info, that's the individual's choice. If a Web site owner wants to demand posters provide personal info, that's the choice of the Web site owner.

Ultimately, the responsibility belongs to the READER not the WRITER. The reader has the right to choose not to read or believe something written by an anonymous poster. The reader has the right to choose to go away and visit some other Web site. You know, change the channel kind of thing.

If you believe government would not force people to provide personal info on a blog or a message board, then you're naive. The idea has already been thought of at least once.

March 2006 Toledo Talk thread titled Internet civility bill stalled :

"A New Jersey lawmaker's attempt to legislate civility on an Internet discussion board runs into a wall of opposition from bloggers and others who saw it as an attempt to stifle free speech. Assemblyman Peter Biondi [Republican] and his staff said they were trying to curb malicious exchanges on some local discussion boards when they introduced a bill requiring people to provide their real names and addresses before posting on public Web sites. The bill also stated that hosts could be sued for failing to disclose the identities of people disseminating false or defamatory information."

This alarming townhall.com article and others like it are created to encourage politicians to do something about the citizenry expressing their right to free speech.

This townhall.com contributor said : "Being identifiable breeds responsibility; anonymity breeds irresponsibility."

Being identifiable may also breed oppression, since you can be monitored and controlled.

What about this?

"The Federalist Papers were written to convince the states to ratify the Constitution. These papers have been labeled one of the most important documents in US history, because of the insight it gave into the Constitution. It was written by Hamilton and Madison, but they chose to publish it anonymously."

"We also see examples of authors publishing under pseudonyms to avoid discrimination. We see that writers in China were afraid to speak out against the government for fear of ruining the honor of their family name. So they did so under pseudonyms."

Talley v California :

"Justice Black argues that there is a history of anonymous pamphlets which contribute to the well-being of mankind."

McIntire v Ohio Election Board :

"... the federal supreme court overturned the fine because:"

* Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority.

Do not trust a person who opposes anonymous Web postings.

I'm one that uses my name. However, I fully understand how stating an opinion can cause all kinds of problems for the poster. I find it unfortunate that this makes me a target and there have been a few who went after my character and not my opinion on this site and at Toledo Talk.

I use my name as it is a means for me to maintain civility and to take personal responsibility for what I say. But I also support the unnamed poster for the very reasons jr has stated.

So while I would like us to keep our civility and refrain from personal attacks and language, this too is a side effect on the other side of the coin.

In this community I have seen the efforts to disparage the messenger as a reason to ignore the message. The message should be the concern. Is the issue valid? So I'll support the issue of privacy and anonymous postings even though I cringe at times when I see it get personal and postings turn obscene.

First.

Let's first determine what we're really discussing, here.

Here's a little basic info for the non-technical.

The IP number (physical address) of the computer used is usually logged, often also the host name (logical name). Many people connect to the Internet using a temporary IP number assigned to them for a single session. But also such numbers are logged by the ISP (Internet Service Provider) and it is possible to find out who used a certain IP number at a certain time, provided that the ISP assists in the identification. There are also other well-known methods for breaking anonymity, for example elements can be included on a web page, or email, which communicates information without knowledge of the person watching the web page or reading the email.

If you understand the technology, and have a court order, it is very easy - in most cases - to discover someone's identity.

So, we're really talking about pseudonymity.

Second.

Prager specifically was illuminating the proliferation of ad hominem attacks and other uncivil discourse.

Did Prager make any statements that the government should regulate Internet speech? He did say: "Anyone interested in serious political discourse, or in merely lowering the hate levels in our country, should welcome the banning of anonymous postings."

Did he mean "banning" by the government?

No.

He was exhorting discussion board owners to disallow the use of pseudonyms. Here's his punch line:

"The irresponsible, the angry, the obscene and the dumb have virtually taken over many Internet dialogues. But there is an easy fix, and websites owe it to society to use it. Just ban anonymous postings."

Therefore, jr's lengthy diatribe concerning his suspicion that conservatives are hypocritically attempting to increase government participation in this medium has little to do with what Prager was saying or what Maggie was asking.

I thought that the overall tone of his opinion piece was one of looking down his nose at those of us who participate in these forums. And he made it clear that he would not deign to read web sites that allow pseudonymity.

I've made it clear that people who hide behind a pseudonym in order to launch ad hominem attacks against other board participants are cowards, and all the other names Michael Miller, Brian Wilson and Prager have proclaimed in their remarks.

I participate here and jr's board because discussions are relevant, regardless of the tone. Is there a loss of civility? - OF COURSE.

Most regular, pseudonymous, posters in this forum - and others - are avid consumers of information. Anyone in the media business who ignores them does so at his or her own peril.

So, Prager seems to be lamenting that his world (media) is going to the dogs, and he considers himself to be, "...reading fewer and fewer comments sections because of the low level of so many of the postings. Just as bad money chases away good money, moronic postings chase away intelligent ones. I have come to the point where I even read fewer comments posted about my own columns."

Now, there's a cry baby!

just to add another aspect to the conversation (which I'm enjoying and learning from, btw)...remember the Toledo Talk get-togethers? My schedule did allow to attend one and I had a great time.

But I also recall comments about previous ones in which people were polite and cordial - maybe more so - in person than they had be on line...

again, your thoughts on this?

Personally, I don't mind anonymous posters on public forums like this. I respect and appreciate the decision of blog owners to determine their own policies regarding anonymous posters. On my own blog, I don't accept 'anonymous' comments, as you must have an account with blogger - but you can be as anonymous as you want through blogger...

I guess my original thought in reading the column and posting it here was to see if y'all thought having your names associated with your postings would make you more or less likely to engage in 'uncivil' comments - or if it wouldn't make any difference at all.

Of course, as normally goes with these kinds of things, the conversation goes in various directions and I do appreciate your feedback on all those directions...

Enjoyed reading the posts of jr and Paulhem. Kudos to Maggie for the original post.

As an aside, Maggie, you link fairly frequently to townhall.com and I'm getting a little tired of the ad featuring the chick with the "re-defeat communism" t-shirt and line drawn through Hillary's face. I guess we all know where townhall stands politically, LOL.

Anonymous postings are just the characteristic of this medium; I don't think they can be avoided. In my mind, when someone posts anonymously, I always take what he or she say with a grain of salt because they don't want to ID who they are. I do give a little more credit to those that post or ID themselves. I credit Paul Hem for posting with his name. Does it perhaps cause bad behavior? Yes, we can see it happening here and at other places.

Anonymous postings can also be beneficial. You have potential whistleblowers that fear recrimination. I know a person who posts things about their employer here and on other boards anonymously and if he/she was identified that person would be fired. But that person is correct in the criticisms he/she levels. Also, there was the fixation with "deep throat" during the Watergate scandal. So there are times when you have to be anonymous to present something that may have recrimination.

Anonymous posting also lower the status of the poster to a "common person" status. The president of Whole Foods was on a discussion board talking about a competitor and gave some insight into the competitor. He finally was "outed" and admitted to it. I don't know how good/bad the insight was but maybe he had something of value to offer. If he posted under his real name, people would probably discredit what was said if it was good. If President Bush had something to offer on a topic of let's say tractor repair (since he owns a ranch), his message would be missed due to the baggage he carries around with the decisions he made. Maybe he has a good point, but if he posted under his name, what ever he said would be missed due to posters attacking/praising him.

So, while there are obvious flaws to anonymous posting, there are also benefits. Since this is just the characteristic of the medium, it is the nature of the beast. I think they equal themselves out. I do think that every user has the ability to determine what is a good post and who is way off base and that users do defend those that need defending. So my faith has not been shaken.

"Did Prager make any statements that the government should regulate Internet speech?"

Then why did Prager write his column? Why did townhall.com print it? Why do the Pragers and Millers complain about this? Web site owners can ban anonymous posters today if they want, so what's the point in demanding non-compliant Web site owners to take action?

Prager said :

"There is not one good reason for any website, left or right, or non-political, to allow people to avoid identifying themselves. Anyone interested in serious political discourse, or in merely lowering the hate levels in our country, should welcome the banning of anonymous postings."

Frightening opinion. Who do you think would be responsible for banning anonymous postings? Who controls what is read on the Web and posted to the Web in China?

Here's an idea: Participate in sites that require personal information. Boom. Simple. What's so hard about that? If you're bothered, simply go away. Why force your beliefs on others? And so what if fewer people post on a Web site that allows anonymous writers. What business is it of Prager's?

Hey Hem, why do the op-eds in your paper have no names attached to them?

Hey Hem, why do journalists sometimes use unnamed sources to get information for an article?

Funny how anonymity is okay for some but not for others.

Who gets to define what is considered civil and uncivil speech?

Who gets to be a part of the moral authority that decides what is acceptable speech on the Web?

Hey Hem, have you heard of the word incrementalism? Conservatives enjoy tossing that word around when talking about legislation from liberals that supposedly erodes our freedoms, like gun control. Allow that gun to be banned, and then some day, another type of gun gets banned, and ultimately, all guns are banned.

Once again, just last year :

"A New Jersey lawmaker's attempt to legislate civility on an Internet discussion board runs into a wall of opposition from bloggers and others who saw it as an attempt to stifle free speech. Assemblyman Peter Biondi [Republican] and his staff said they were trying to curb malicious exchanges on some local discussion boards ..."

It's disturbing that such an idea or a bill got that far in one of our states. Then again, maybe it's not surprising.

For the Pragers and Biondis of the world, today it's foul language and ad hominem attacks, but who knows what this type of incrementalism brings us in the future? Maybe tomorrow, it's a simple disagreement with the government or the mob that is deemed uncivil.

In 2004, mob rule in Ohio defined marriage as between one man and one woman. I voted against that. Suppose I write a polite essay expressing my disagreement with this mob rule decision, and I include with my essay my Social Security number and a credit card number. It's 100% civil by Prager's definition today. My essay is nicer than anything Mr. Rogers would create. I just happen to disagree with something. And then someone like Prager dislikes what I wrote because I disagree with the mob, and then Prager decides my sweet, wholesome essay is now uncivil by a new definition.

Oh yeah, from Wikipedia about Dennis Prager the author of this townhall.com opinion :

"Prager has been outspoken in his opposition to same sex marriage."

And since I support same sex marriage, it's possible that some day my polite opinion about this issue could be deemed uncivil by people like Prager because I disagree with his government and his mob rule. What, you don't think this is possible some day? How much of our freedoms have already been legislated away by our government? Have you heard of the Nanny State?

Does Prager have data that shows the percentage of Web discussions that are uncivil by Prager's definition? Is it 5%, 50%, or 90%? Doesn't that depend upon the type of site you visit and your definition of uncivil speech? What's an acceptable percentage of uncivil rhetoric? None?

Compare the comments at allrecipes.com with the comments at fark.com. From Prager's viewpoint, which site is more uncivil? Which site lacks moral clarity? Probably both, since neither site discusses what Prager thinks we should be talking about. Incrementalism. Today, uncivil rhetoric by anonymous posters. Tomorrow, who knows what it might be.

Why are anonymous posters being targeted in 2006 and 2007? Why now when Web-based discussions have been around for more than 10 years, and online electronic bulletin boards began more than 20 years ago? People were having "tough" conversations on The Well in the 1980's.

Oh, but it was only a tiny percentage of the population who engaged in online discussions 20 years ago. But now that a lot more people -- still a small percentage -- are easily expressing their opinions in digital form, opinions that Prager disagrees with, anonymous posting is somehow a problem for the Pragers of the world.

If you want the freedom the Internet offers, then you accept its warts. After all, some day some entity might consider Prager's religious viewpoints to be uncivil and to be banned from the Web. Do we only ban uncivil anonymous postings? What about "uncivil" rhetoric from people who identify themselves like Prager?

"In late 2006 Prager became the center of a national controversy, when he wrote two columns condemning the plan of Representative-elect Keith Ellison (D-MN), the first Muslim elected to US Congress, to ceremoniously swear in on the Quran. Prager originally wrote, "He [Ellison] should not be allowed to do so -- not because of any American hostility to the Koran, but because the act undermines American civilization." Prager admitted that the words "should not be allowed to do so" were poorly chosen and were not expressed as a desire to see the government restrict Ellison's right to swear in on the Quran. Rather, Prager said he meant to suggest that public outcry should be strong enough to influence Ellison to bring a Bible along to his swearing in."

Maybe some group believes Prager's viewpoints listed above are uncivil. Maybe some group believe Prager is dangerous. Prager seems to support mob rule. So maybe Prager should be banned from the Web along with uncivil anonymous posters. And maybe some day he will be banned if Prager gets his way today.

Why does Prager focus on anonymous Web posters? He gives the impression that only anonymous Web posters are capable of uncivil rhetoric. Why does Prager only associate cursing and ad hominem attacks with uncivil discourse? Can rhetoric without bad language be considered uncivil by someone? Why does Prager believe only anonymous posters are without logic?

Prager's viewpoints about Representative Keith Ellison's swearing-in ceremony could be considered uncivil by someone. Seems to me, Prager wanted the U.S. government to force a religion on a U.S. citizen. Is that the role of our government today?

And what about TV, radio, movies, and the arts? Any uncivil rhetoric or actions occurring in those mediums? What about the words from politicians? Why the focus on anonymous Web posters?

We don't have cable or satellite TV in our household, but I've seen some of the revolting talk shows on cable TV. You know the routine. It's a split screen with two people who disagree about an issue, yelling at each other while the talk show host eggs them on. They give their personal info, and they may not use bad language, but is it civil discourse? Couldn't someone consider the argument culture on talk TV and talk radio to be uncivil?

I'm surprised some Toledoans aren't protesting the Harvest Theatre's production of the play Doubt. I'm sure some good Toledo Catholics would find the play uncivil.

Is the Toledo Art Museum displaying works that someone might consider to be uncivil or offensive?

When someone like Prager narrowly targets one aspect of society, warning flags should go up. If Prager was more like the Taliban and was calling for a ban on just about everything in society, he would be no less dangerous, but he would have more respect because at least he would be mentally consistent.

The real irony is that I value reading the posts of people who have launched into me in the past. I'll qualify that by stating I enjoy their posts when their not lambasting me.

Do I think we'd get along in person?

Hell, yes!

I wouldn't participate at all if I couldn't do so with a certain amount of anonymity. I'd lose business over my opinions and I can't afford to do that. Case in point, look what happened to Kim du Toit over his blog content.

I like JR's opinion on this, although I think everyone here is giving Michael S. Miller too much credit. Some anonymous poster probably hit Mr. Miller with ten pounds of flame bait and sarcastic rebuttal, right after someone else pissed in his Wheaties that morning. As a result, Mr. Miller is blowing a lot of smoke off the balcony of his bully pulpit.

Blogs I read and post on invite anonymous contributions, and that's the way it should be. If you want to use your real name, by all means feel free. Otherwise we respect your privacy. Speaking of which, having been to a few ToledoTalk soirees, I can say that the people I met there were nice, polite individuals, and generally say the same things they do when they post of ToledoTalk. There are a few exceptions...

MadJack: "You know Steve, you really should run for the TPS school board. I'd vote for you and help you out."

SFlagg: "Fuck you Jack!"

Well, maybe not. Anyway, the whole concept of elective anonymous posting encourages free speech.

Is the Toledo Art Museum displaying works that someone might consider to be uncivil or offensive?

It's guaranteed that they are.

This is the crux for me, to echo Paul: "people who hide behind a pseudonym in order to launch ad hominem attacks against other board participants ..."

It is not the average poster or information sharer who abuses these forums, but the attackers who dart in, spit and dart out who poison the well.

It's not that I lack respect for this medium; it's because I have great respect for the power and reach of this medium that I am so vehemently against those who abuse it by hiding as they attack.

I can't claim to know what it's like to be a regular poster here who walks around without any ramifications for my comments, and very few of you can claim to know what it's like to have your opinions attached to your name and face in very public forums.

Mainstream media by and large ignores or undervalues most blog/posting sites, because they have little or no economic impact on the bottom line. The day SwampBubbles and its fellow sites start draining ad money away from traditional media is the day all that changes. TFP has tried to be involved with the local blogging community by hiring some writers (Lisa Renee Ward, Matt Sussman) and reprinting occasional posts that feel germane to our audience. I have always respected JR and often reached out to him in our early days for advice on public meetings and assorted questions. He is "anonymous" in the generic sense but has used his site to move ideas and discussion forward. The same can't be said for many of those who use his site.

Nothing I have seen here makes me feel any amnesty to those who use anonymity, not as a shield of protection , but as a club used to bully with no fear of accountability.

Michael Miller
Editor in Chief
Toledo Free Press

Use an open proxy. These are mis-configured services on a server some where on the net.

Use a remailer for Usenet postings.

Sign up anonymously with a service offering ssh tunnels like the service I use.

You can sign up with cash or e-gold on some or even money orders and without your name and the logs kept are for 5 days and if there is no name on the account there is no person to go after.

http://toledoohioneighborhoodconcerns.com/blog

Some may need anonymity for the time being, so they develop/cultivate a persona, which may become more revealing, as their personal situation permits.

The purpose: to impart information and to cultivate thoughts and ideas under conditions that would make doing so otherwise impossible.