tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14947374.post2950001579364555663..comments2024-01-04T19:09:41.005-08:00Comments on Man or Maniac?: On Anonymity, the Internet, and Free SpeechUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14947374.post-73822170223025095582007-12-24T07:13:00.000-08:002007-12-24T07:13:00.000-08:00C.L, Your post is about the best I've seen anywher...C.L, Your post is about the best I've seen anywhere on this topic! <BR/><BR/>There are millions of different types of blogs out there. From blogs about babies to very personal blogs to blogs for just fun and serious professional blogs. If Al Gore wrote a blog specific to global warming, I would expect him to use his real name. <BR/><BR/>However, most bloggers don't blog for their career or paycheck. Most blogs fall into the category of entertainment more than news. <BR/><BR/>If anyone reads the "about" section of my blog, they will see the warning that they shouldn't believe everything they see on my blog. I've created this "Walter Mitty" persona. This alter ego. It is more fiction and entertainment than anything else.<BR/><BR/>However, I work at an ultra, ultra liberal place of employment and my position involves meeting our "customers" from all over the nation, and it involves money. I have been quoted in the Miami Herald numerous times, and filmed by local television stations. So, if suddenly my alter ego became public, at the very, very least, I would be ordered to shut my blog. I could very easily be fired. And that would not just make me unemployed, it would ruin my career. <BR/><BR/>Actually, I would get fired, since if they ordered me to shut down my blog I would tell them to go to hell. They have no right to tell me what to do or not to do on my free time, and I always write on my time, not theirs.<BR/><BR/>So, anonymity is essential for my free speech.<BR/><BR/>SCGAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14947374.post-28067161512232918192007-12-20T19:32:00.000-08:002007-12-20T19:32:00.000-08:00As it always does in a free speech issue, it comes...As it always does in a free speech issue, it comes down to "why does that matter?"<BR/><BR/>The issue he was arguing had no bearing on his actual identity. It wasn't remotely relevant to the topic of the post that Bob was critiquing, it wasn't relevant to the argument Rick was offering, there was no reason for Bob to bring it up at all.<BR/><BR/>NOW, if the discussion had BEEN about use of company time for personal business, we have a reason to discuss it. If the discussion had BEEN one where the author's identity needed to be established for reasons of credibility, THEN we'd have a reason to discuss it.<BR/><BR/>Since his identity had no relevance to the discussion, Bob was out of line to tweak Rick. We knew ENOUGH about him for the purposes of discussion; we had a point of reference (Rick), and an archive of past statements (SotP).<BR/><BR/>The thing about free speech is that WHY is not a factor; the US Supreme Court has ruled on this before. Unless the person is using their pseudonym for fraudulent purposes, a person has the right to use a pseudonym to exercise their rights under the first ammendment, or even to remain anonymous outright. It doesn't matter if you or I don't think he needs it; for free speech to work HE has to feel protected.<BR/><BR/>It also noted that even though it's acceptable and legal, it can undermine credibility, and that is unavoidable. You're free to say what you want, but we can feel free to consider the source and ignore you.<BR/><BR/>Rick had the right to post under a pseudonym. That does not protect him from discovery, but as a matter of courtesy, internet etiquette has recognized that some parties post under an assumed identity, and in international internet circles, that convention is honored. In usenet, I've seen people who've 'outed' long time participants end up vilified and shunned from the group.<BR/><BR/>Consider how many books are written under a pen-name; or the number of actors or performers who use a stage name. Sometimes their true identities are known; occasionally there are legal fights when someone tries to protect their privacy.<BR/><BR/>Rick wasn't out of line, and Bob was. Is it my opinion? Yes, but I can bring a lot of precedent to the table; it's a well-informed opinion, and not some misguided idol worship. Hell, most discussions between Rick and myself were very heated. He ain't my hero.<BR/><BR/>But he did have my respect, and his blog filled a niche that is now all too empty.C.L.J.https://www.blogger.com/profile/01734352657431970430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14947374.post-48343853531602470692007-12-20T19:06:00.000-08:002007-12-20T19:06:00.000-08:00I'm fine with about all of this, but look -- "anon...I'm fine with about all of this, but look -- "anonymity" <I>per se</I> wasn't the issue. It was WHY he was anonymous. And that opened the floodgates: evidently he feared he might get dooced, and also, revealing his identity might have impeached his credibility. Those are genuine issues.<BR/><BR/>As far as I'm concerned, the second is irrelevant: what's important is what's said rather than the sayer. Not everybody shares that view.<BR/><BR/>As for the first, one does what one must. The blog is bullshit compared to one's livlihood. Who would disagree with that?<BR/><BR/>Bottom line: like it or not, agree or disagree, the blogosphere is reduced by SoTP's disappearance. I wish Rick and Alex nothing but the best, and hope they'll hang around at least in other bloggers' comments.<BR/><BR/>As for you, C.L., keep it up. IMHO you're doing great.Steve ("Klotz" As In "Blood")https://www.blogger.com/profile/10765015594843101593noreply@blogger.com