On August 8, 2009, the Vanguard ran a story on its court battle to protect the anonymity of a commenter. At issue was a July 27, 2009 notice that the Vanguard received from the legal department at Google.
“Google has received a civil subpoena for information related to your blog and anonymous comments posted on your blog. The case is entitled Calvin Chang v. Regents of University of California, Superior Court, County of Sacramento, State of California.”
It continued:
“To comply with the law, unless you or an anonymous commenter provide us with a copy of a motion to quash the subpoena (or other formal objection filed in court) via email at legal-support@google.com This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it by 5pm Pacific Time on August 16, 2009, Google will assume you do not have an objection to production of the requested information and may provide responsive documents on this date.”
The Vanguard responded through Attorney Don Mooney:
“By this Subpoena it appears that Plaintiff is using his complaint against the UC Regents to go on a fishing expedition for information that is both irrelevant and constitutionally protected. Plaintiff seeks the personal, identifying information of third parties that do not have any connection to Plaintiff’s suit against the Regents other than to have commented on a blog entry reporting information about the case. Plaintiff’s subpoena seems to be nothing more than an attempt to intimidate those who have expressed a negative opinion about himself or his suit against the Regents. As such, the Subpoena constitutes an abuse of the discovery process.”
The Vanguard just read the response to its motion to quash. Their argument centers on our lack of standing to challenge the disclosure of the anonymous posters. While I’ll let Mr. Mooney lay out the legal grounds of our argument, I find that a perplexing tactic. Google may have hosted the content of the Vanguard, but the Vanguard itself is still owner of that content and we have a stake in protecting the integrity of our site.
Moreover they argue that neither Google nor the Parties came forward to object to the subpoena. That is certainly Google’s stated policy, which makes sense. However, the parties involved were probably not noticed properly. It is not reasonable to expect the parties involved to respond to a notice posted in mid-August, a full seven months after public of the original article on a different website. Again, I’ll leave the legal arguments for Mr. Mooney, but from a practical standpoint that does not seem a reasonable means by which to notice. And I simply do not accept the argument that the Vanguard does not have a stake in the integrity of the commenter’s identity not being breached.
If you wish to view the legal notice posted by the Luti Law Firm and Anthony Luti representing the Plaintiff Calvin Chang, click here and scroll to the bottom:
It is interesting to note that the issue of Google and anonymity has come up in the past week with regards to a high profile story out of New York.
Last week on August 24, 2009, the New York Times ran an article,
Last week Judge Joan Madden ordered Google to identify the anonymous blogger whose site, “Skanks in NYC,” hosted by a Google subsidiary and now removed, slammed the fashion model Liskula Cohen. Madden found the blogger’s writing, including the assertion that Cohen is a “psychotic, lying, whoring … skank,” to be “reasonably susceptible to a defamatory connotation.” That is, Cohen has the basis for a lawsuit and is entitled to know the identity of the blogger in order to seek legal redress. Google complied, identifying the blogger to Cohen’s lawyer. Has anonymous posting, though generally protected by law, become so toxic that it should be discouraged?
The blogger is now suing Google over the “outing.”
Writes Wired Magazine:
An anonymous blogger unmasked by Google last week following a court order has vowed to sue the internet giant for violating her privacy.
Rosemary Port, who operated a blog called “Skanks in NYC,” was outed last week after failing in her efforts to quash a subpoena served on Google, whose Blogger service hosted Skanks.
Port’s lawyer, Salvatore Strazzullo, now plans to sue Google for $15 million for breaching its “fiduciary duty to protect her expectation of anonymity.” He told the New York Daily News that he’s prepared to take the case all the way to the Supreme Court.
“Our Founding Fathers wrote ‘The Federalist Papers’ under pseudonyms,” Strazzullo told the Daily News. “Inherent in the First Amendment is the right to speak anonymously. Shouldn’t that right extend to the new public square of the Internet?”
It continues:
Cohen then subpoenaed Google in an effort to unmask her critic’s identity with the aim of filing a defamation suit against the blog author once the identity was known. Google provided Port with notice of the subpoena, giving the blogger an opportunity to anonymously challenge the subpoena in court.
Cohen charged that the blog comments harmed her career and caused potential clients to question her suitability to represent their products. Port’s lawyer argued that the posts in question amounted to nothing more than vague insults on par with calling someone a “jerk.”
Manhattan Supreme Court Judge Joan Madden ruled that Cohen demonstrated sufficient claims for the defamation lawsuit, and ordered Google to comply with the subpoena. Madden said that the words, posted in conjunction with provocative photos of Cohen, implied that the model was “a sexually promiscuous woman,” belying that the comments were merely opinion or hyperbole.
Google complied with the order, but Port essentially asserts that Google should have defied the court to protect her First Amendment right to call Cohen a skank anonymously.
I do not buy the suit against Google here. I do not think it is Google’s responsibility to fight legal battles and if it were, they would no longer be able to host other people’s content. That does not seem reasonable.
However, from my standpoint, I hardly think what the blogger did should rise to the level of defamation. The blogger pointed out that very few people read her blog for one thing.
Port has blamed Cohen for any negative attention the blog might have brought her, telling the Daily News that until Cohen sued Google no one had seen the blog, and that by filing a public suit that brought attention to the matter, Cohen had “defamed herself.”
“Before her suit, there were probably two hits on my website: One from me looking at it, and one from her looking at it,” Port told the paper. “That was before it became a spectacle. I feel my right to privacy has been violated.”
More than that, it is questionable about whether namecalling alone would have had a tangible impact on someone’s career or cause harm.
“Cohen was called a “psychotic, lying, whoring . . . skank” and an “old hag,” and was depicted as a desperate “fortysomething” who was past her prime.”
Is that really damaging enough to warrant a defamation case? The model is probably harmed more by the foolish suit than the blog post.
Legal experts believe this has little chance of succeeding–the suit against Google by the Blogger.
The San Francisco Chronicle wrote on August 28:
“It will be a very difficult case to prove,” said Chris Hoofnagle, a lecturer at the UC Berkeley Law School who focuses on information privacy.
There are two major problems with the approach, he said. First, while there’s a legal obligation of trust between doctors and patients or lawyers and clients, no such inherent understanding between a blogger and a free online service has been recognized by the courts.
Second, even if Port does successfully argue that such a relationship existed, Google can claim that its duty was limited – in the same way that a lawyer can break his confidentiality obligation to prevent a crime. The company could maintain that it complied by not revealing Port’s identity up until the point it was ordered to do so by the court.
Google’s terms of service state plainly: “You agree that Google may access or disclose your personal information, including the content of your communications, if Google is required to do so in order to comply with any valid legal process or governmental request.”
From Google’s standpoint:
Without commenting on the case specifically, the company said in a statement: “We sympathize with anyone who may be the victim of cyber bullying. We also take great care to respect privacy concerns and will only provide information about a user in response to a subpoena or other court order. … At the same time, we have a legal team whose job is to scrutinize these requests and make sure they meet not only the letter but the spirit of the law.”
Indeed, in 2006, the company successfully fought a Department of Justice subpoena for millions of search queries, arguing it invaded user privacy. But Google has also come under criticism for other privacy issues, including the amount of time it retains a customer’s search queries and ill-defined protections in the pending legal settlement that would allow the company to sell access to millions of scanned books.
Whatever the merits of the Google suit, the more concerning aspect of this is what is being termed CyberSLAPP Lawsuits:
Matt Zimmerman, senior staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation in San Francisco, has voiced many of these concerns himself, but he, too, doesn’t see a valid legal argument for Port.
That said, he and other privacy advocates do worry about the legal precedent established, given the growing number of what are known as CyberSLAPP lawsuits. In such cases, targets of anonymous criticism file suits, often frivolous, just so they can issue a subpoena to a Web site or Internet service provider to uncover the identity of the authors and intimidate, embarrass or silence them. Cohen, in fact, has dropped her subsequent defamation suit, according to the New York Post.
“The notion that you can use the court as your personal private investigator to out anonymous critics is a dangerous precedent to set,” Zimmerman said. “I think the practical impact (of the Cohen case) is that litigious people will see this as a green light to try to out critics.”
Along those lines the Citizen Media Law Project had commentary on August 26, 2009:
No one can dispute that we have a category of human slime that uses online anonymity (or, usually more accurately, pseudonymity) to attack other people. These people, classic cowards, hide behind the virtual bushes to take potshots, and they do so with the ugliest kind of satisfaction.
But as Cohen’s case shows—the postings about her weren’t even close to being the worst material I’ve seen from anonymous sources—online media creators aren’t exempt from defamation laws, though it may take more effort to find out who they are. The judge in New York, Joan A. Madden, looked at the facts and, in my view, correctly decided that Port’s blog postings were sufficiently crude to justify Cohen’s plans to file a defamation lawsuit—not that they were absolutely defamatory, but that they were within the ballpark that could justify letting a jury decide.
Port, for her part, told reporters that almost no one would have known about her sleazy behavior had Cohen not gone to court in the first place and had Google not turned her name over. Talk about twisted logic. Cohen, and most likely some of their mutual acquaintances, knew about it. And the likelihood, given the Internet’s staying power, is that at least some others would have seen Port’s remarks, too. Let’s hope the courts toss any lawsuit from Port into the nearest trash can.
They continue with the dilemma we have dealt with on the Vanguard from the beginning, the proper use of anonymity.
One of the norms we’d be wise to establish is this: People who don’t stand behind their words deserve, in almost every case, no respect for what they say. In many cases, anonymity is a hiding place that harbors cowardice, not honor. The more we can encourage people to use their real names, the better. But if we try to force this, we’ll create more trouble than we fix.
People who’d ban anonymity don’t seem to realize that it’s technically impossible unless we’re willing to turn over all of our communications in every venue to a central authority—a system that would herald the end of liberty. They can’t really want such a regime, can they? Meanwhile, even that kind of structure could and would be hacked by motivated types, though with more difficulty.
Moreover, anonymity has crucially important value. We need it for whistleblowers, for political dissidents in dictatorships—for those who have important stories to tell but whose lives or livelihoods would be in jeopardy if their identities were exposed.
In other words, to save the heroes who tell us about vital matters, we have to recognize that we’ll also have people who use free speech to ignoble ends. When they cross the line to defamation, they deserve the woes they may bring on themselves.
The bottom line from my standpoint is that most of the people who post here anonymously, do so for no particularly good reason other than the failure to stand behind their words with their own name, however, they also for the most part do not post things maliciously. There are a few people that abuse the right of anonymity to say things they would never say to someone’s face or behind their own name. That’s reprehensible. The question is really why have anonymity at all in posting and I still believe there is a valid reason to be served by it.
However, I think this and other court causes that have come out in the past week should serve as a warning. We may or may not have greater control over the content of this site on our own private server than we did on Google. I am not a lawyer and cannot speak to that from a lawyer’s perspective. What is clear is that anonymity is not going to protect you from a possible defamation suit where your anonymity could in fact be breached by court order. We would seek to protect you under most reasonable cases.
I think Mr. Mooney is correct to suggest that this is largely a fishing expedition by the lawyers for Calvin Chang. I agree with the crux of his suit and think that he has been wronged by his employer, but I would prefer he not use the Vanguard as the means by which to win his suit.
I remind people again that the terms of use are now posted directly below your comment area and they include:
“Any posts that use profanity or engage in name-calling or other potentially slanderous attacks will be subject to deletion. Keep your posts on topic to the extent possible. Posts whose primary purpose is to correct spelling and/ or grammar are also subject to deletion.”
The first portion of that of course is to protect us as much as the user, but anyone should bear in mind while under most reasonable circumstances your identity can be protected, anonymity can be at times breached and you might be held liable for your comments.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
I don’t see the comments on your old site for any of the stories. Are they still there? Or did you delete them as a response to this suit?
As I explained in the article, when I disabled the comment feature it hid the comments. They are not deleted.
Very interesting article about the issue of anonymity on blogs. I, for one, publish comments on your blog anonymously, and for good reason. My job and position as a commissioner could be in jeapordy (spelling?) if I were to identify myself – in this town w an atmosphere of political retaliation. I feel I can be more frank and honest in my heartfelt opinions under a pseudonym. However, I do not use anonymity to trash people, or call them names. Obviously that is where the line must be drawn. Blogging is a relatively new phenomenon, and all the legal ramifications of blogging will be fleshed out in case law as time goes on.
I also find it irritating when certain commenters on this blog hide behind attacks on an anonymous person’s opinions by faulting that person for commenting anonymously. IMHO it is cowardly on their part to do so, even if they have the “courage” to post under their real name. An opinion on the merits is still a valid opinion. Also, oftentimes anonymous posters have had a particular experience w an elected official, and want to bring that out in a discussion, but don’t dare do it by name for fear of retaliation. Retaliation is a very real phenomenon in this town (or any other town for that matter). I have been the victim of some very vicious political maneuvering, and have used this blog to counter some of the nonsense that goes on behind the scenes by posting anonymously. If I posted my real name, there is no question there would be severe retribution. I have, to a certain extent, kept certain politicians in this town more honest than they ordinarily would be. It has forced some of them to explain/defend their stupid decisions on this blog, which they should have to do – defend their political record. If they cannot, the voters will remember that come election time.
Yes there are trolls that pop up on websites to disrupt the discussion w mean spirited attacks. Unfortunately that is one of the down sides to anonymous posts. But without the possibility of anonymity, I don’t think you would get the lively discussions we have on this blog from time to time, where people feel free to really let loose in their opinions. Sometimes it results in some pretty snarky comments, but at the same time people really express how they feel without feeling the necessity of being politically correct.
One thing I would like to point out, tho, is how unlikely it will be for either Cohen or Port to win their respective law suits. In either case, they most show ACTUAL MONETARY DAMAGES. For instance, Cohen would have to actually prove her modeling career was damaged by Port’s anonymous comments. I doubt she could. Port would have to prove Cohen’s outing of Port’s identity caused Port any damages – it probably did just the opposite, and made her a bit of money. The only ones gaining from these type of law suits are the lawyers trying to make a name for themselves. Both suits are highly questionable, but interesting nonetheless, from the perspective of fleshing out some very thorny legal issues that need explicating.
I think it’s more than that:
“Port would have to prove Cohen’s outing of Port’s identity caused Port any damages – it probably did just the opposite, and made her a bit of money.”
She’s suing Google, I don’t see that Google has any obligation to protect the identities there or on the Vanguard. The Vanguard certainly will not sue Google if the identity of my posters got outed.
It is reprehensible for people to use this blog for ad hominem attacks (name calling). I don’t do it, and neither do many of the people who post here anonymously. The blog hoster can (and perhaps should) delete posts that contain such attacks (but that’s another discussion).
I post anonymously for the same reason many others do – this is a small town. Because of our jobs, family or business relationships, or whatever, our comments may be read as the “official” position of whatever group we are associated with – and not as our individual opinion. Without the ability to post anonymously, we may lose our voice in the public debate. To limit the discussion for some would be a loss for all. Thank you for creating a forum where we all feel safe to comment. At least for now.
[quote]The bottom line from my standpoint is that most of the people who post here anonymously, do so for no particularly good reason other than the failure to stand behind their words with their own name, however, they also for the most part do not post things maliciously. There are a few people that abuse the right of anonymity to say things they would never say to someone’s face or behind their own name. That’s reprehensible. The question is really why have anonymity at all in posting and I still believe there is a valid reason to be served by it.
[/quote]
Anonymous public opining is a modern phenomena made possible by blog technology. I think, as the blog owner/administrator, you either allow it or not. It comes down to defining what type of blog you desire. If you allow anonymous posting more posts will be personal, nasty and inflammatory. If you require pseudonyms, it will be a bit less so. If you require registration of an account with a name attached to a valid email address, you will raise the bar for the quality of content but the tradeoff will be more exclusivity and group-think… and probably less participation. I see the Vanguard as a community blog. Communities are comprised of all sorts of personalities: including those more experienced making their point on the playground rather than the debate team. I like seeing the macro view contained within a rich soup of diverse posts, so I support allowing anonymous posts.
Maybe you can move the needle by complaining about the more uncivil anonymous posts, but my guess is that you just rile them up because you validate that they got under your skin, or you convey an elitist position that marginalizes their position, feelings or skill of communication. I think that the “don’t get hooked” rule is the best way to move that needle. If you ignore the heat caused by the attack and respond with calm intelligence over any meaningful debate or opinion (assuming you can find any) then you deny the attacker the joy of noting your agitation and model the behavior you wish to see.
There is also the issue of risk. Proposition-8 was an example of this. Many people suffered professional damage as a result of being ratted out by revengeful gay-rights activists. Personally, I think this was more reprehensible than was/is the position of some religious zealots on the topic of gay marriage. If we want talk about malice, there is much more risk associated with the malice of proposition-losing activists than there is in the heat of the words of your typical anonymous post. All anonymous posters to this blog take note: simply “view source” and you will see that your IP address is logged and viewable by all. If you blog using multiple pseudonyms, or use you name but then blog anonymously due to risk considerations, assuming you use the same PC, it is likely that your identity can correlated. Also, a reverse DNS lookup can be used to discover your ISP. For example, I did so for David’s IP address “76.20.61.53” and noted that his ISP is Comcast (same as mine btw).
“She’s suing Google, I don’t see that Google has any obligation to protect the identities there or on the Vanguard. The Vanguard certainly will not sue Google if the identity of my posters got outed.”
It doesn’t matter who Port is suing. In order to get anywhere w her suit against Google or whoever, she has to prove ACTUAL MONETARY DAMAGES. She will not be able to do so. She has probably made a bit of money from the noteriety she has gained from being “outed” by Google. Also, bc Port signed the Google terms of use agreement, I doubt she would win the lawsuit anyway, even if she could prove ACTUAL MONETARY DAMAGES (which I doubt she can). That is why her suit is silly, and probably just a case of a trial lawyer looking to make a name for himself.
Anon:
See your point. I’ve been pretty adamant about people identifying themselves. I’ve said so because of the sometimes quite nasty insults written by anonymous posters. It still helps to have some vague idea (without a specific name) of the author of a legitimate comment. For instance, if you post as “Anon 1” each time, I have some idea of where you’re coming from based on past comments. Perhaps something more generic like “Retired”, “Long Time Resident” or “Public Sector”? I wish there weren’t the multiple posts under different names altho the general tone is a clue. No posts under under someone else’s name but anyone sorry enough to do that usually can’t spell, write or think. I have considerable respect for one City Council member who does post w/ full identification. The Vanguard is a valuable source of information. If being able to post anonymously increases the number of useful contribution then it’s good. It’s easy enough to scroll past the junk.
[i]”I, for one, publish comments on your blog anonymously, and for good reason. My job and [u]position as a commissioner[/u] could be in jeopardy if I were to identify myself – in this town w an atmosphere of political retaliation.”[/i]
I serve on a commission (Historical Resources). I have no idea what makes you so afraid of [i]political retaliation[/i], unless you are launching personal attacks (under a pseudonym) against members of the City Council, whom you serve. I think your obligation as a commissioner includes giving your honest opinion in public. If your feelings are hurtful and not necessarily factual, then just keep them private.
[i]”I do not use anonymity to trash people.”[/i]
How nice of you.
[i]”I also find it irritating when [u]certain commenters[/u] on this blog hide behind attacks on an anonymous person’s opinions by faulting that person for commenting anonymously. IMHO it is cowardly on their part to do so, even if they have the “courage” to post under their real name.”[/i]
How nice of you to contradict yourself in the same post and use anonymity to trash me.
The vast majority of personal attacks (on Vanguard) are made against members of the city staff, the city council and against David Greenwald. My view is, if you would not say such things in the light of day or to the person’s face, then don’t say them hiding behind a fake name.
So this blog logs IP addresses in the html of the comment….great. Well, this is the last time I comment here.
Every blog does. Every email does. Every web site does. There is no such thing as anonymity on the web. Bottom line: really hard to track without a court order so don’t commit libel or defame people and you have nothing to worry about.
Every blog does. Every email does. Every web site does. There is no such thing as anonymity on the web. Bottom line: really hard to track without a court order so don’t commit libel or defame people and you have nothing to worry about.
Not every blog or every website, but many do. Email generally does include the sender’s IP address in the email header.
Most computer users cannot be identified by their IP address unless their ISP gives up this information. Also, Comcast and most ISPs use something called DHCP, and your IP address will periodically change… making it even more impossible to correlate IP address and person. However, if you are hosting a web server from the same local area network that the PC you are posting from resides, and the domain for that web server is openly registered it would be easy to at least connect a blogger with the owner of the domain. For example, it may be possible to identify the company where you work if you are blogging from your work computer. Also, if you use your name on some blogs but go anonymous on particular topics, or you use various pseudonyms, all of these posts can possibly be connected by a common IP address. That was my initial point… it is possible under certain circumstances and with a bit of forensic work to figure out the name of an anonymous blogger.
All companies that host blogs, websites or email services (e.g., Comcast, Google) have a record of all their account owners’ current assigned IP addresses, and assignments made over a period of time. Unless the hosting company gives up this information, or someone hacks into their database, it is impossible to get. However, as I point out, there are circumstances where a poster could be identified. In general it is best to consider David’s point that there is really no complete anonymity on the Internet especially when the courts are so quick to subpoena this information. However, like most things meaningful and useful (and fun?), it comes with an element of risk.
Every blog does. Every email does. Every web site does. There is no such thing as anonymity on the web. Bottom line: really hard to track without a court order so don’t commit libel or defame people and you have nothing to worry about.
Not every blog or every website, but many do. Email generally does include the sender’s IP address in the email header.
Most computer users cannot be identified by their IP address unless their ISP gives up this information. Also, Comcast and most ISPs use something called DHCP, and your IP address will periodically change… making it even more impossible to correlate IP address and person. However, if you are hosting a web server from the same local area network that the PC you are posting from resides, and the domain for that web server is openly registered it would be easy to at least connect a blogger with the owner of the domain. For example, it may be possible to identify the company where you work if you are blogging from your work computer. Also, if you use your name on some blogs but go anonymous on particular topics, or you use various pseudonyms, all of these posts can possibly be connected by a common IP address. That was my initial point… it is possible under certain circumstances and with a bit of forensic work to figure out the name of an anonymous blogger.
All companies that host blogs, websites or email services (e.g., Comcast, Google) have a record of all their account owners’ current assigned IP addresses, and assignments made over a period of time. Unless the hosting company gives up this information, or someone hacks into their database, it is impossible to get. However, as I point out, there are circumstances where a poster could be identified. In general it is best to consider David’s point that there is really no complete anonymity on the Internet especially when the courts are so quick to subpoena this information. However, like most things meaningful and useful (and fun?), it comes with an element of risk.
I serve on a commission (Historical Resources). I have no idea what makes you so afraid of political retaliation, unless you are launching personal attacks (under a pseudonym) against members of the City Council, whom you serve. I think your obligation as a commissioner includes giving your honest opinion in public. If your feelings are hurtful and not necessarily factual, then just keep them private
Rich, you seem to disregard any risk concern here. While I don’t envision any lynching or burnings at the stake, there are topics where activists have a proven track record for malice against those with opposing viewpoints. What about a militant PETA follower attempting to identify a blogger supporting the use of animals for drug testing. Prop-8 was a recent example where people lost jobs and were physically threatened with harm by gay rights groups because of their political view. Also, what if you are a city employee with an opinion counter to a local politician? What if you are a UCD employee that believes faculty are overpaid? All these scenarios have risk associated with them. Malicious or snarky anonymous posters may hurt someone’s feelings, but identified posters can be materially damaged. It seems like you are protecting thinned-skinned subjects for trivial reasons while you demand that at-risk bloggers grow thick skin and identify themselves.
I grew up in a very small town and, of course, now live and work in a bigger but still small town. Word gets around and saying the ‘wrong’ thing, regardless of its accuracy, can have disastrous consequences.
I have both seen and been a victim of retaliation for my internet opinion while naively posting with my real name. Never again.
There are places where your real name or a permanent username can be useful, but a political blog is not one of them.
“How nice of you to contradict yourself in the same post and use anonymity to trash me.”
I don’t remember the commenter mentioning anyone’s name, but apparently you believe the shoe fits yourself!
[quote] Prop-8 was a recent example where people lost jobs and were physically threatened with harm by gay rights groups because of their political view.[/quote] It seems to me, if someone has a rational or well-intentioned explanation of his point of view and wants to express that opinion publicly, he should do so and deal with the consequences*. No one, ever, has the right to bring physical harm to him or threaten him for doing so. That is, of course, a violation of the law and would be prosecuted.
That said, I don’t have a problem with someone expressing his opinions anonymously, as long as that expression does not include an attack against someone else in our community. I think anonymous posters should not attack by name or inference the character or motives or other personal aspects of people in our community. [quote] Also, what if you are a city employee with an opinion counter to a local politician? [/quote] You have 3 reasonable choices in that case:
1) Express your views publicly, using your own name. Given the amount of civil service protection we have, it is very unlikely your opinions will harm your job prospects. More likely, they will make personal relations with your co-workers and that politician uncomfortable;
2) Express your views privately. No harm, no foul; and
3) Express your views publicly, under a pseudonym. Explain the facts as you see them and why you believe a certain policy is wrong or a different policy is preferable. But don’t drag the name of the “local politician” into it. Don’t write that the politician (who lives in Davis) that you disagree with is a dirtbag or is crazy or has bad motives. That’s malicious.[quote] What if you are a UCD employee that believes faculty are overpaid? [/quote] Give the money back.
———-
*The owner of a Davis business who opposes gay marriage did just that.
[quote]Give the money back[/quote]
Ex-California Musical Theatre artistic director Scott Eckern. What money could he give back to reclaim his job?
Note that I am playing devils advocate here because I obvioulsy do not have any problem using my name. But I have a thick head, zero political aspirations and a job that is reasonably secure from retaliation. Interesting though… several months ago my dad interviewed a prospective contract employee from Davis who got up and left the interview when he discovered we were related. I guess he had a problem with one or more of my letters to the editor. At least he didn’t egg my car or TP my house!
Rich Rifkin: “I think anonymous posters should not attack by name or inference the character or motives or other personal aspects of people in our community.”
I find this a very interesting statement coming from you. At times your comments have gotten pretty personal and snarky against posters.
[quote]At times your comments have gotten pretty personal and snarky against posters. [/quote] Name one person who lives in our community against whom I have ever made a personal attack in a public forum.
Don’t confuse my (occassionally petulant) replies to the anonymous assh*les on this blog with “personal attacks.” When a poster uses a fake name, no one can “personally” berate him.
In fact, I think that is the motive 99% of the time for nasty anonymous posters: They love dishing out abuse; but they don’t want anyone to be able to respond to them as an individual.
It is largely just a fake fig leaf to claim that the reason for anonymity (when making derogatory remarks) is to protect your job or your position in the community.
Of course, the majority of anonymous posters don’t make personal attacks against anyone in our community. They are just giving their opinions on the topic at hand. The reason they post anonymously, I would guess, is because they lack confidence in themselves, their ideas or their ability to communicate their ideas.
Rich Rifkin: “Don’t confuse my (occassionally petulant) replies to the anonymous assh*les on this blog with “personal attacks.” When a poster uses a fake name, no one can “personally” berate him.”
If you consider anonymous posters so beneath you, then why waste your valuable time answering these “assh*les” as you call them? My, you do have a rather high opinion of yourself, no?