Anonymity, Credibility, and Civil Discourse

I recently ran into a fellow CCP member at the grocery store, and, before I even mentioned the blog, she apologized for not posting. "It seems like bloggers get attacked, and I don't want to get attacked," she explained. I couldn't argue the point.

Here at BlogCCP, we've had our first heated thread, featuring a little name-calling and an anonymous commenter.

The first heated thread of a blog is kind of like a baby's first tooth. There's a lot of fussiness and slime, but no real harm is done, and it shows that we're ready to chew on some meatier topics.

The issue of whether to allow anonymous commenters was a difficult one for those of us involved in setting up this blog. From his comments in the heated thread, you can see that our President has some concerns about anonymous commenters, and feels that they can drag down the level of discourse. I agree with him about the risks, but feel strongly that the upside of allowing free conversation offsets the downside. The compromise reached was that we only allow personally signed posts, but comments may be anonymous or pseudonymous.

Anonymity and its close cousin, pseudonymity, have played an important role in political discourse historically. Benjamin Franklin and George Orwell wrote under pseudonyms. Many of the pamphleteers who helped inspire the Revolutionary War published their work anonymously.

Anonymity and pseudonymity are useful tools in today's interconnected world. If my career ambition were to become a federal judge, I would be wiser to publish my thoughts without my name, and avoid having to defend an off-the-cuff comment to the Senate Judiciary Committee. Similarly, many of us have employers, clients or customers who may be stumble across a post and take offense, to our financial and professional detriment.

Also, my friend in the grocery store is a thoughtful, intelligent woman. If she were able to blog anonymously or pseudonymously, she might be posting insightful posts in this space now.

As Bough points out, though, attaching your name to your thoughts demonstrates a certain level of commitment. When Hancock signed the Declaration of Independence, he signed in large print so King George III could read it without his glasses.

Using your name does not necessarily grant credibility. Only a history of accuracy and thoughtfulness will accomplish that goal. Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh demonstrate that some people's credibility sinks beneath the level of anonymity. They have soiled their reputation by repeatedly engaging in false, inflammatory attacks.

If you want to write a convincing comment, it makes sense to avoid personal attacks and focus on the substance. Similarly, criticizing a commenter for posting anonymously is not very persuasive without a demonstration that the points made by that person were flawed.

I hope we have a lot of lively conversation on this blog, and that a tone of respectful persuasion prevails. So far, I'd say we're doing pretty well . . .