Anonymously Yours

Columns

Maxine Berman

Anonymously Yours

November 18, 2011

Here’s something I don’t understand. If you want to write a letter to the editor of the print or digitized version of a newspaper, you have to provide your name, address, phone number, email address, driver’s license number, Social Security number, latitude and longitude plus Google Earth photo of your home and identifying scars (if any). Then and only then will the editors decide if your comments can be considered for a “family” newspaper.

But if you want to comment in the online version of that same “family” paper, you need only provide a screen name, like moronsrule, an email address, like myiqsunder80@yahoo.com, a password, like pickmylimpbrain, along with your gender, year of birth and the country you live in. In other words, nothing to identify who you really are. Then you have the right to say anything you want, be it racist, sexist, anti-Semitic, homophobic, anti-Muslim, anti-whatever.

You can trash a president, a governor or any elected official in the ugliest of ways. You can do the same to private citizens. You can lie. You can libel. You can make snide comments about someone’s death. Everyone and everything is fair game in this not so very fair game.

And, yes, I know that these papers do censor some comments, but puh-leeze. So it’s not okay to say the N word or kikes, but it is okay to describe victims of the attacks with common, obnoxious stereotypes?

I’ve often wondered if moronsrule (hereinafter referred to as just plain morons) would ever be willing to make these same vile, obnoxious, hateful remarks attached to their own names. Why not? They seem quite proud of their comments.

And who are they? Are they people of stature in the community who, feeling trapped by the need to be politically correct in their 9-5 world, are desperate to find an outlet for their baser instincts? Or are the misspellings, fractured sentence structures and stupid, ignorant assumptions about almost everything, especially how government functions, a true reflection of their intelligence?

And why on earth do these news organizations feel a responsibility to provide these kinds of forums? Are they concerned that without such platforms, they might lose out on sales to the bottom of the intellectual food chain? Or is it their genuine desire to make sure that even the most embarrassing members of the family have a place at a “family” paper table?

It kind of reminds me of the defeat of G. Harrold Carswell’s nomination to the Supreme Court in 1970. In addition to having a highly suspect record on civil rights, Carswell was considered by many in the legal community to be a mediocre jurist. This prompted one supporting senator to say, “Even if he is mediocre, there are a lot of mediocre…people…and they are entitled to a little representation, aren’t they?”

Ironically, many of these same newspapers are quick to editorialize against people or organizations who openly espouse racism, anti-Semitism, homophobism, and the like. (Except, psst, if you want to say such things, please sign on to our online versions.)

And speaking of the morons who have no compunction about public rants, I’m still trying to decide which is worse. Take, for example, the state senator who referred to both President Obama and Governor Haley of South Carolina as “ragheads.” (Reminder: nothing I’ve said above suggests there is no such thing as a moronic elected official.) Would we all have been better off if he had taken to the anonymous blogosphere?

Granted, the history of America — and especially our politics — has been littered with ugliness. But never before, thanks to the Internet, have so many had the opportunity to go for the moronic gold. And it’s not just a matter of hurting someone’s feelings: never before have some of our sickest citizens been given so much fodder to justify their hatred.

Will a decision in a recent lawsuit change all this? According to an Ingham County judge, Cooley Law School has the right to provide the real name of a blogger who has been attacking the school on a number of fronts, some of which Cooley says are defamatory. A nonprofit consumer advocacy group says doing so would allow the powerful to intimidate and perhaps even retaliate against those who have legitimate criticisms. It’s that old “chilling effect.”

I’m not a constitutional lawyer and don’t know all of the facts of this case, but it may be a little different than the online morons — though not all of the time.

I have long been an advocate of free speech and will continue to be, but you still can’t yell “Fire!” in a crowded place, and for those sickest of citizens referenced above, I’m not sure if our anonymous, say-anything privileges aren’t tantamount to free gasoline.

Oh, and by the way, if you want to comment on this article, use your real name or keep it to yourself.

Maxine Berman is the Griffin Endowed Chair in American Government at Central Michigan University, the first woman named to the post. She served seven terms in the Michigan House and most recently was director of special projects for Governor Jennifer Granholm. She is the author of the 1994 book The Only Boobs in the House Are Men.

November 18, 2011 · Filed under Berman

17 responses so far ↓

1 Jim Wiljanen // Nov 18, 2011 at 10:15 pm

I’ve wondered the same thing as you, convinced that the garbage that fills many online comment sections of media outlets is a reflection on the newspaper, magazine, radio, TV and/or digital source that carries it. I’ve lost respect for those outlets that provide the soapbox for hatred, bullying and related posts.
2 Jack Lessenberry // Nov 21, 2011 at 5:11 am

Ms. Berman’s comments should be sent to every publication in the country. I could not agree more.
3 Rich Robinson // Nov 21, 2011 at 5:16 am

Thank you, Maxine. Shouldn’t the same principles of accountability apply to those who spend millions on campaign speech, too?
4 Javan Kienzle // Nov 21, 2011 at 5:31 am

They are all cowards. Hiding behinc their “user names” is today’s equivalent of the Ku Klux Klan’s sheets.
5 Kevin Shopshire // Nov 21, 2011 at 8:00 am

You have some great points, but I’m not sure publishing with screen names is such a bad thing. Thomas Paine’s “Common Sense” was originally published anonymously. Granted, it’s a stretch to compare something that could have gotten Paine executed to some of the crap in comments sections, but I think there is a place for it.
6 Matt Roush // Nov 21, 2011 at 8:04 am

Amen. I have personally killed a lot of vile, hateful comments at WWJ.com, but I can’t be everywhere…
7 anonymous // Nov 21, 2011 at 8:42 am

Leaving an anonymouse comment does not make the commention automatically offensive, inaccurate, uneducated, or anything else. Some people, depending on the positions they hold (especially in political arenas) can’t comment with their real name, but I would think you would rather read a well thought out comment from an anonymous poster then blather from someone with a real name. Of course, even when you do see a real name, is it real? Until we go to mandatory biometric verified log ons, and a true end to anonymous web use in general, any assumption that a comment from [insert 'real' name here] is really a real name is, well, just an assumption. I’m not willing to turn over my fingerprints to the great IP address in the sky (you know, the one that is never hacked) just so you know Iamthewalrus@beatles.com is really a little old lady who wants to protect her privacy after suffering from identity theft.
8 Andy Hickner // Nov 21, 2011 at 10:28 am

I agree with anonymous & Kevin that entirely eliminating user privacy might do more harm than good. The vast majority of anonymous commenters are respectful and thoughtful and do not abuse anonymity. Unfortunately, they are crowded out by the small but very active minority who ruin it for everybody else by posting both irresponsibly & disproportionately often.

I think sites like AnnArbor.com & freep.com could go a long way toward solving the problem by allowing users to post anonymously, but reserving the right to force that user to use, say, their Facebook account/”real identity” if they abuse the privilege.
9 goods // Nov 21, 2011 at 10:39 am

Unfortunately, even those that identify themselves in TV ads are not readily recognized. Just look at Americans for Prosperity and the American Petroleum Institute and the lies and twisting of the truth that they send over the airwaves.
10 Nick Ciaramitaro // Nov 21, 2011 at 3:06 pm

Nailed it again, Maxine. Though there may be an occasion of annonymity as noted above, generally, I figure if you aren’t willing to sign it, its probably not worth much. Annonymous mail generally gets thrown away — so should most annonymous email.
11 Ross Yednock // Nov 21, 2011 at 3:06 pm

Well put… and my advice to my colleagues, bosses, parents (my mother was shocked when she first read a comment second, to which I replied that is why you shouldn’t read them) is always to NOT read the comment section unless, of course, you are looking for more fuel for your inner fire, or just like to get riled up.
12 Iamthewalrus // Nov 22, 2011 at 4:47 pm

Nick and Ross make great points – sometimes, we give comments too much credit. Not that many people really read them, and if you see one that is anonymous, you can choose to skip it, take it with a grain of salt, etc. The words people right only give them power over you if allow them to. As more computers get built with built in camera’s behind the screen, it will be interesting to see if this is a problem that takes care of itself: no blogger hate mail with this! : http://www.engadget.com/2011/11/22/new-computer-system-can-read-your-emotions-will-probably-be-ann/
13 Matt Schonert // Nov 25, 2011 at 10:56 am

If Internet users are stripped of anonymity, what does Ms. Berman suggest be done to protect people from retaliation for expressing legitimate but unpopular grievances?
14 David Kessel // Nov 27, 2011 at 9:56 pm

I spotted a disclaimer on the website ‘Angry Bear’ recently that seems to get at the pertinent question:

‘Please use the comments to demonstrate your own ignorance, unfamiliarity with empirical data, ability to repeat discredited memes, and lack of respect for scientific knowledge. Also, be sure to create straw men and argue against things I have neither said nor even implied. Any irrelevancies you can mention will also be appreciated. Lastly, kindly forgo all civility in your discourse . . . you are, after all, anonymous.’
15 aaron surma // Dec 2, 2011 at 12:58 pm

Matt Schonert // Nov 25, 2011 at 10:56 am

If Internet users are stripped of anonymity, what does Ms. Berman suggest be done to protect people from retaliation for expressing legitimate but unpopular grievances?

i would guess the first amendment.
16 michael gonyea // Dec 14, 2011 at 8:59 pm

As a moron who never posts anonymously, I wholly agree. I’ve heard the retaliation argument before, and I think it is total bullshit. You know where to find me aaron. Retaliate away.
17 Motown v. TreeTown II | Motown To Tree Town // Jan 3, 2012 at 9:49 pm

[...] feels shady when Ben, Vivienne & others are posting under their own names, and Maxine Berman lambastes and accuses of cowardice those who comment anonymously. I’m still trying to figure out what [...]

17 responses so far ↓

Leave a Comment: