The Internet has become a great soapbox for ordinary citizens,
but there is increasing controversy around the trend of anonymous
political blogging. In 2006, it was estimated
that 55 percent of Americanbloggers post under a pseudonym. But
along with the explosion of anonymous blogs has come a whole host
of problems. Some bloggers have used their anonymity to spread
false information without ramifications. Others have used it to
launch personal attacks against friend and foe alike.
This has led to appeals from all over the political spectrum for
regulation. Some blogging platform providers such as Tumblr are
taking action on their own and shutting down anonymous blogs.
The European Union
entertained a proposal last fall to prohibit anonymous blogs.
In the U.S., some have asked that the FCC categorize anonymous
political blogs under campaign finance laws subject to
regulation, but so far
the FCC has declined.
In today’s era where we live transparent lives, thanks to
Facebook, friends and organizations recording our every move
online, anonymous speech has become more valuable. It is too easy
now to Google a writer’s name and attack them personally on the
internet for everyone to see, sidetracking a real discussion over
politics into a discussion of the writer. And with a few strokes
of the keyboard, someone’s reputation can be decimated. Many
writers would not provide valuable information if they could not
do so anonymously.
On the other hand, it is useful for readers to know background
information on a writer; not only does it provide context but it
exposes their biases. Anonymity permits writers to perhaps
falsely persuade people they wouldn’t otherwise. If someone is
writing about abolishing gun laws, it would be relevant to know
if they have a history of violence as a gangster.
Anonymous bloggers have provided worthy contributions to
political dialogue. One of the most famous anonymous political
bloggers, Allah Pundit, is
widely cited as a reputable political writer. The blog existed
from 2003-04, and then shut down, reemerging as a contributor in
2006 to Michelle Malkin’s Hot Air website. Allah Pundit’s
blogging is credited with helping discredit a 60 Minutes
show attacking President George W. Bush’s National Guard record.
Our country began with notable anonymous political speech. The
Founding Fathers used anonymous
political writing to generate support for passage of the U.S.
Constitution. Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay
authored the Federalist Papers anonymously using the pseudonym
“Publius.” Hamilton, a lawyer, also used the pseudonym Publius in
three letters attacking Samuel Chase, an Associate Justice of the
United States Supreme Court. Today in some states like Arizona,
attorneys are prohibited
by the state bar from criticizing judges. Anonymous sites like
azjudgesreview.blogspot.com
have popped up containing information about Arizona judges.
Without sites like that, meaningful criticism of judges would be
impossible, since few in Arizona know anything about the judges
except the lawyers who practice in front of them. Common
Sense, a pamphlet written anonymously by Thomas Paine that
became a bestseller in the U.S. and England, is credited with
igniting the American Revolution. If Paine’s identity had been
exposed, he could have been arrested.
So far the courts have diligently protected the right of
anonymous political speech. In the 1995 case McIntyre v. Ohio
Clean Elections Commission, the U.S. Supreme Court stated, “Protections
for anonymous speech are vital to democratic discourse. Allowing
dissenters to shield their identities frees them to express
critical, minority views.…Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny
of the majority.” Attempts to discover the identity
behind anonymous blogs haven’t gotten very far in the courts.
A woman who ran a popular anonymous blog bashing Sarah Palin, The
Mudflats, was outed
in an email newsletter by Alaska Democratic Rep. Mike Doogan.
Doogan was irked that she had posted a piece critical of an email
he’d sent constituents. Local newspaper Anchorage Daily
News had protected her identity. Doogan defended his outing
of the blogger, who went by the pseudonym “Alaska Muckraker,” by
comparing her anonymous attacks to the Ku Klux Klan’s ability to
hide in their pointy-white hats and sheets.
The outed blogger posted a
response on her blog:
It said in my “About” page that I choose to remain anonymous. I
didn’t tell anyone why. I might be a state employee. I might
not want my children to get grief at school. I might be fleeing
from an ex-partner who was abusive and would rather he not know
where I am. My family might not want to talk to me anymore. I
might alienate my best friend. Maybe I don’t feel like having a
brick thrown through my window. My spouse might work for the
Palin administration. Maybe I’d just rather people not know
where I live or where I work. Or none of those things may be
true. None of my readers, nor Mike Doogan had any idea what my
personal circumstances might be.
Clearly all of these reasons are not equally persuasive. It is
one thing to use an anonymous pseudonym to protect someone from
an abuser who might find them. Protecting one’s job depends on
the exact circumstances. Least credible is the defense of not
wanting a best friend to see the real you.
Another problem with anonymous blogging is it carries less
credibility. It is all too easy to dismiss what is being said
when someone doesn’t put their name on it, because their motives
are suspect and many times there is no way to verify the accuracy
of their writing. Considering over half of all blogs are
anonymous, that is a lot of additional information clutter on the
Iinternet for people to sift through in search of verifiable
information.
Anonymous blogging is also criticized for unfairly setting up an
unequal playing field. While one person is criticized by name,
identified and held accountable publicly for their actions, the
other person criticizing them is not.
With strong legal support for the right of anonymous political
speech, some form of anonymous blogging is probably here to stay.
Blogging is the new journalism and there is a reason why
journalists have fought for years to protect the anonymity of
their sources. If it wasn’t for the protection provided to “Deep
Throat,” by Woodward and Bernstein, President Nixon probably
would have never been forced to resign.
The worst elements of anonymous blogging may ultimately resolve
themselves without government stepping in. Many bloggers are
outed, and numerous bloggers have lost their jobs over it. There
are various ways to figure out the identity of an anonymous
blogger without going through legal channels. People talk, and
make technological mistakes revealing their identity.
Ultimately, the First Amendment provides freedom of speech. The
free exchange of ideas promotes accountability.
