I mostly agree with Conor on the matter of Ed Whelan's outing of Publius, the Obsidian Wings blogger. Blogging anonymously is morally problematic; being anonymous gives one license to say things about others that one would not say if one had to put one's name to it. The fact that I put my name to things I blog serves as a kind of restraint on me. There are some things I would say if I could be completely anonymous, but the truth is, they are probably, upon reflection, things I would be better off not saying.
But those things are few and far between. I do almost always blog whatever's on my mind, because I'm a professional pundit. I'm expected to have an opinion about public and private matters, and to give voice to those opinions. Though I expect that my views on same-sex marriage will one day come back to cost me professionally, I doubt as a general matter that I face a serious risk to my career from taking a side on this or that controversy.
That's not the case for many people. This past weekend, I spent some time with a friend in London. A. is one of the most intelligent, humorous, cultured and intellectually eclectic men I know. If he started a blog, it would become a huge hit, I'm sure of it. I would read it obsessively, that's for sure, and I think a lot of people would. And he understands the world of blogging. At one point, I asked him why he doesn't start his own blog. He pointed out that in his field, being identified as having opinions at all (versus having this or that opinion) would cost him work. He cannot afford to declare himself on public issues and controversies, even very mild ones, because there would be a serious price to be paid on how he makes his living. Consequently, we are deprived of what would surely be a lively, intelligent, brilliant blog.
Now, if A. started a blog under a pseudonym, he could probably get away with it, but if someone who learned his true identity decided to out him, everything he had written would be held against him. Why take that risk? People who blog anonymously have a moral responsibility not to abuse their privilege by making nasty personal attacks against others from behind the mask of anonymity. If you do abuse that, I don't feel sorry for you if you're outed. On the other hand, I think bloggers who out pseudonymous bloggers are, as a general matter, doing us all a grave disservice, by making it harder for people who have interesting things to say but who cannot say them under their own name (for professional or personal reasons) to get their ideas into public conversation. Bottom line: if you are going to out an anonymous blogger, you'd better have a very, very good reason for doing so, because the damage you can do to that person's career, and to the online public square, can be real and irreversible.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
Very good post, Doctor Science.
And here's the thing: if someone says they have valid reasons to write under a pseudonym, who is Ed Whelan or anyone else to decide that these reasons are not valid?
You can never know the consequences or even, perhaps, the danger, that might result.
Doctor Science is right: respecting an author's pseudonym is a conservative idea. It is ethical to do so. And, in my opinion, an obligation.
[B]eing anonymous gives one license to say things about others that one would not say if one had to put one's name to it.
Well . . . sorta, but not really germane. One of the most frustrating aspects of this debate is the constant elision of anonymous with pseudonymous, even when people take great pains to point out that there is a difference. Anonymity grants license, but it also takes away clout. You don't really want or need to lash out at the anonymous blog commentor --- you call them a troll or something, or ban them, and move on. Why? Because an anonymous opinion carries with it the brand of its anonymity.
Pseudonymity is markedly different, and publius was pseudonymous. He had, both at Legal Fiction and ObWi, built up a hefty store of blog posts. Because he wanted folks to read his blog, and because he thought he had points to make, I think that the same restraints acted on him as acted on you, Rod. One's arguments are not better or worse because of the name attached to them. Publius was working within a longstanding Western literary tradition --- regardless of whether or not his work rises to the level of his namesake, or Mark Twain, or George Orwell, or O. Henry, or Moliere. Over the years, he built up a canon of work, and his concern with preserving the value of that canon is likely every bit as much a restraint as attaching one's "true" name to something. After all, the value of one's "true" self is built on exactly the same thing --- a body of work, built up over time. Whether or not publius might have written differently under his real name is essentially immaterial. It is what he actually wrote under his pseudonym which built up his base of readers. It is what he actually wrote concerning Whelan's attacks -- first on Koh and then on Sotomayor -- which incited Whelan's outsized reaction. I can understand that Whelan was embarrassed, and I can understand it struck close to home, but it comes nowhere near the "what if?" concerns you express.
So in light of your "restraint" argument, let's just note that it was Ed Whelan -- the blogger blogging under his own name -- who showed a complete and total lack of restraint. The fact that Whelan attached his name to his posts and emails doesn't really make him a stand-up guy. Shouldn't that at least factor into your analysis?
Okay, sorry. That's me above. Dumb refresh button.
This was a great topic. I had somthing I wanted to say, but by the time I got to the bottom, Ruth, Kirk, Doctor Science, and Douglas had all made such great comments that my thunder was gone. Just one last last bubble of gas is left, and that is in response to IW who said:
"Hmmm, if you use your real name you sanitize your comments for civic consumption. If you use pseudonym you can speak your mind, be cynical, lie, or even tell it like it is. Pseudonyms keep you free from hypocrisy. Free at last, free at last."
IW, I would like to have just quoted a word or two, but since I disagree with the implications of every single word in that statement, I had to quote it all. That's OK, this captcha has expired.
I use a pseudonym for my neighborhood blog, but regular readers and people who live in my neighborhood and attend the same stupid local meetings can ID me in person based on pieces of information provided. Friends and neighbors are happy to out me in the real world public sphere. Because these things attract trolls and idiots and because I am a single woman in a 'transitional' neighborhood... that means drug dealers, the occasional gun shot, and other assorted safety concerns, I don't make it easy for the lazy attacker. You wanna come after me you have to do research.
The other reason for a pseudonym is the blog and my actual paying job have nothing to do with each other. I also want to cultivate my real name to bring up hits associated with my real job. That wouldn't happen if I posted my real name.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.