Anonymous Speech 1

Freedom of speech and anonymous speech have been intertwined since the beginning of America. Proponents of the United States Constitution published the famous Federalist Papers under the pseudonym “Publius”. Their anonymity remained intact from 1787 to 1792 when a French edition identified the authors as Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay.

There continues to be valid reason for the need to protect anonymous speech. People in fear of physical reprisal, job security, or social stigmas may express themselves under the protection of anonymity. This is invaluable as the world seeks to be informed on situations in totalitarian countries such North Korea, and learn more about developments in other countries like China where the exercise of free speech is neither valued nor protected.

The Internet is full of websites, blogs and news sources that allow for anonymous posting. In the new medium, traditional newspapers now publish online comments from anonymous sources online, and yet the same publications would never allow them to be published in their printed version. There is no effort to govern the new medium with the same measures employed through the centuries for printed publications.

News sources can speak of freedom of speech and freedom of the press, but with freedom comes responsibility. There is a steady decline in this sense of responsibility as evidence by a recent article on a local rape victim. The anonymous postings permitted by The Bergen Record mocked rape and ridiculed the victim, and apparently their policy is to permit it and provide a platform for it. In another local example, the paper ran an article concerning a boy who suffered brain damage during the course of a Little League game. Two years after the fact the parents, who had been lobbying for changes they believed would prevent a similar accident from occurring, decided to file a lawsuit for damages. The comments that followed were cruel, judgmental, and ignorant of the facts, and yet because technology allows them to be published uncensored they are.

The instantaneous nature of the Internet has led many to experience “email regret”. Misinterpreting the message, or reacting immediately without thought, has led many individuals to regret an email sent in anger and haste. The same factors are at work with anonymous posts to blogs, newspapers, or websites. There is an immediate reaction to provide one’s own 2 cents, and often the value of the comments are worth far less than that. The town of Oakland received some questionable press several years back after the formation of a forum for town residents to post anonymous comments on local issues. It originally showed promise as a platform for discussion, but regular readers and authors eventually noted that an inordinate amount of negative, personal attacks was diminishing its usefulness as a platform for communications.

There is an immediate expectation now by people that anonymous posting is a right, and occasionally a hostile reaction with accusations of censorship when that ability is not available. The Journal publications are censored. Anonymous comments are not allowed, but their authors are contacted to see if they would like to provide a full name for posting; comments that are uncivil are not allowed, but authors are contacted to allow for a re-submission. The Oakland Journal, The Wyckoff Journal, and The Franklin Lakes Journal receive many comments that are positive and constructive, but cannot be posted due to their anonymous nature.

There is no denying that anonymity serves a valuable service in many situations. Communities that grow around sensitive, personal subjects which allow users to find support and understanding are important outgrowths of the Internet; the ability to discuss with honesty topics which might impact a person negatively if done in public can be good for both the individual and society. Finding support for substance abuse, sexual abuse, or depression are examples where anonymous posting is a valuable tool.

The allowance of anonymous postings by news media on any and every topic, under the pretense of promoting free speech, is only a mask for misguided strategies to increase traffic and income. It may be democratic to give the words of the bigoted and ignorant the same weight and prominence given to the intelligent and insightful, but it does nothing to improve democracy.

-Charlie McCormick