“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.”
The case involves a story posted on the Vanguard’s old Blogger site run through Google. The article, “Former UC Davis Officer Claims Violation of Settlement Agreement” highlights the lawsuit that UC Davis Police Officer Calvin Chang brought against his former department and University in part for harassment and in part for a violation of a previous settlement agreement. There were seven postings that were either anonymous or pseudonymous that according to Officer Chang might have originated from a former supervisor and therefore go to the heart of the case.
“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 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.”
It is interesting that Google’s de facto policy is to accede to the subpoena and provide the information. However, from our standpoint, the Vanguard believes that the right to post anonymous is something that needs to be protected and fought for. It is for that reason that the Vanguard and its attorney, Don Mooney, have filed a motion to quash this subpoena.
It should also be noted that the Vanguard and myself are not unsympathetic to the case of Calvin Chang, however from the standpoint of the Vanguard, it is imperative to protect the identity of our posters. Many have criticized the Vanguard’s willingness to allow anonymous individuals to write comments on the blog, but it has been a hallmark of the Vanguard since its inception to be a place where there can be a free flow of ideas that people would be free to publish without fear of retribution. The ability of a court to release information about posters would strike at the very cord and threaten the integrity of this site.
After reviewing the comments themselves, it not even clear that these comments were made by any party to this case and we believe the risk to the integrity of this site, outweighs the benefit that the release of this information might provide.
As Attorney Don Mooney writes in the motion:
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 motion also admonishes the Plaintiff for failure to properly notify the Vanguard as the owner of the site.
“There is no indication that Plaintiff even attempted to satisfy the notice requirements set forth in section 1985.3. Plaintiff did not file any papers with the clerk of the court, did not post any information on the Vanguard, nor did he ever contact Mr. Greenwald to request his aid in notifying the commentators. Furthermore, the Plaintiff failed to serve Mr. Greenwald with a copy of the Subpoena, despite the fact that the Subpoena seeks records pertaining to the Vanguard, Mr. Greenwald’s business, and his contact information is readily available. While the commentators may have posted anonymously on the Vanguard, and thus may be difficult to contact, there were several possible avenues through which the Plaintiff could have at least attempted to comply with the notice requirements of section 1985.3, however it appears that he made no effort whatsoever to do so.”
Finally, Mr. Mooney rests his motion on the constitutional right to anonymous speech.
The United States Supreme Court has clearly stated that “an author is free to decide whether or not to disclose his or her true identity”. (McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm. (1995) 514 U.S. 334, 341.) Regardless of his or her reasons for wishing to remain nameless, the “interest in having anonymous works enter the marketplace of ideas unquestionably outweighs any public interest in requiring disclosure as a condition of entry”. (Id. at 342.) “Accordingly, an author’s decision to remain anonymous, like other decisions concerning omissions or additions to the content of a publication, is an aspect of the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment.” (Id.) In the eyes of the Supreme Court, anonymity “exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation-and their ideas from suppression-at the hand of an intolerant society”. (Id. at 357.) Despite the possibility that a right to anonymous speech may be abused in some cases, “in general, our society accords greater weight to the value of free speech than to the dangers of its misuse”. (Id.)
His statement captures the Vanguard’s view of the right anonymous and free speech.
Internet sites, including things like chat rooms and blogs, are merely an electronic alternative to traditional town meetings and public gatherings. Those who wish to present their views and opinions in the historic types of public forum have always enjoyed the protections of the First Amendment – including protecting their identities if they choose to speak anonymously. There is no compelling reason to support the notion that speakers in electronic versions of those same public forums should be denied equal protections under the First Amendment. A rule that revokes the security afforded by a cloak of anonymity for those who choose to voice their opinions online would have a substantial and permanent chilling effect on open, candid speech in electronic public forums. Such a result flies in the face of everything the Bill of Rights, and particularly the First Amendment, seeks to protect and promote.
He continues:
Protecting the identity of anonymous commentators is particularly important in instances similar to the situation at hand. The Vanguard frequently provides reports on topics which are controversial and may potentially impact significant local interests in the City of Davis and Yolo County. (Greenwald Decl., ¶ 6.) The most likely commentators on these stories are members of those communities – residents, business owners, local politicians, etc… (Id., ¶ 7.) Many of those community members may feel compelled to express their opinions on subjects which either impact their lives or businesses, or about which they feel especially passionate; but would be reluctant to offer their views if they could not do so anonymously. Their desire to remain nameless may stem from fear of retaliation by the community or harm to their economic interests, or it may simply be a wish to protect their personal privacy. Regardless of their motivations, these citizens will be much more hesitant to contribute their thoughts and views to public discussions if there are only fleeting protections over their personal, identifying information.
Commentary
During the course of the last three years there have been times when that policy has been inconvenient. People have used the veil of anonymity to engage in uncivil discourse and character assassinations. There have been many times where I have found myself questioning whether I should continue this policy.
However, whenever I examined my rationale I am reminded again of the original purpose for this site and the reasons why that policy was established to begin with.
Don Mooney writes that given these first amendment protections, “plaintiff has not made the prima facie showing of libel required to overcome first amendment protections for the anonymous comments on the Vanguard.” Along those lines I am reminded of a comment when we first discussed in the summer of 2007 whether to end anonymous comments. The person suggested that while we have many comments and often heated discussions, rarely do these discussions rise to the level of vitriol that would necessity the need to change policy.
Indeed in many ways this has been as challenging a week as any that we have encountered between the columns of a certain columnist, comments in that column by a certain elected officials, and comments on the blog questioning my position on a certain heated issue, and yet again I am reminded of the original mission of the Vanguard and remain steadfast in my belief that people ought to have a place and a public space to air their views without fear of personal retribution and there we remain as committed as ever to protecting the rights of people to post anonymously.
In this case, I fight for the principle even in a case where I support the overall goals of the plaintiff. As I told Officer Chang personally, I wish him well in his case, I believe there is a good chance he was wronged in his employment and that his settlement agreement was unlawfully violated, but I must protect the integrity of everything I have built in the last three years.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Three cheers for the Vanguard! Sometimes I agree with you and sometimes I don’t, but I respect the fact that you are willing to fight for the right to free speech and right to remain anonymous. Thank you for the work you do.
guess the only way to be anonymous in the future is to log onto the blog from a free wifi spot in town, so you can’t be traced.
I expect to win this, so I don’t think that will be necessary. That said, I think it is advisable not to put potentially slanderous or libelous remarks on a public site especially pertaining to a pending or ongoing lawsuit.
[i]The second motivating factor was an observation that people were afraid to speak out and be heard for fear of retribution. I wanted to create a place where anonymity could be valued and protected and where people could speak out without fear of social consequence or stigma.[/i]
If that was the intention, then you have miscalculated. If you had only allowed anonymous postings within reason, that would have been fine; in fact it would have been a good idea. Instead, most of the comments are anonymous, usually for no reason at all and sometimes clearly for bad reasons. As a result, you have fostered exactly the fear of retribution that you wanted to dispel.
I don’t really want to post comments anonymously. If I honestly speak my mind often enough, my personality would show through anyway. It could create a guessing game and that distraction would take up way too much of my time.
But if I post with my real name, then I have to worry about anonymous people casting about insults and otherwise trying to embarrass me. I don’t want that either. It does make me more reluctant to comment. For me personally it’s not that big of a deal on this site. If I worked for the city or if I were seriously involved in city politics, it would be a big deal.
You have been reasonably attuned to violations of the Terms of Usage — when people heckle you. It’s a different story when the comments heckle Linda Katehi or Steven Souza or someone else who frustrates you. Although in your defense, it’s extremely difficult to be even-handed about this and you probably just don’t have the time to police so many anonymous comments.
It’s interesting that you now have a sizable legal obligation to protect the identity of possibly hundreds of anonymous commenters. I certainly think that you and your lawyer are on the right side in the specific case of Calvin Chang. But that case is just one land mine in a huge field. In the end, I think that you have gone overboard with what could have been a principled stand.
[i]”Any posts that use profanity or engage in name-calling or other potentially slanderous attacks will be subject to deletion. Please keep your posts on topic to the extent possible.”[/i]
I tend to agree with Greg’s comments above. Almost none of the posters who do so without providing their names are ever giving an opinion which would put their professional lives at stake. Rather, the tendency to post under a false name simply is an invitation to make mean-spirited comments about other members of our community, usually someone they don’t agree with politically.
My opinion is that if a poster makes reference to someone else who lives or works in Davis in his post, and casts negative aspersions against that person, even if the aspersion does not rise to the level of slander, the post should be a violation of the Terms of Usage of this blog. If you don’t have the guts to use your own name, then you should not have the right to condemn other members of our community by name or by inference.
Greg K. perhaps does not go far enough back on this blog to recall the worst of this abuse, but the very worst of it was directed at Sue Greenwald, where cowards hiding behind fake names were endlessly and meanly questioning her sanity. (I should say that I speak with Sue fairly often, and she is perfectly sane, very smart, well informed, and cares deeply about doing what is in the best interests of Davis.) I have no idea why, but David Greenwald (no relation to Sue) never removed those posts.
Perhaps the tone was set when the very originator of the blog masqueraded as DPD and later began to post under his real name. Even to this day many people refer to him on this blog as DPD.
keep up the good work! that is vital! Rebecca Wu
From the recent column, “The Puzzle of Souza’s Wildhorse Vote,” I picked out the following attacks made by cowards who post anonymously. Not one of them posted anonymously out of a rational fear of retribution. They post anonymously so their friends and neighbors remain unaware how mean-spirited they are:
[b]Just lil ol’ me:[/b] “Could it be mid-life crisis power-tripping?”
[b]SODA’ite:[/b] “I am beginning to believe you are biased from your friendships.”
[b]Sue supporter:[/b] “Sue and Steve played to the cameras on the ‘poor us, it’s kinda late and we need to go to bed.’ Eileen was sitting in the back, passing them notes and urging them to delay (meaning give her more time to kill the project).”
[b]Faux WOW Man:[/b] “Steve, you have no idea how much you damaged yourself on this project. It makes you look like basically a mean, spiteful, and disorganized member of the CC. … Should have known that your bitterness from the Covell Village knock-down would stay in your heart, waiting for the moment when you could try to get your revenge. As I saw the progressive support for this project grow, it was plain to me that it could likely result in you flipping, out of spite. … you sit up there with your nasty little grudge held close to your heart, and vote for project after project that have little redeming value to environmental issues, then you meet this one and try to kill it? … Yet here you are, self-proclaimed Mr. WOW Man, former Mr. Peace Activist, the Darling Boy of the Parks and Rec Commission, doing everything you can, including political extortion the day before the CC vote, to deprive the voters of taking a look at it? What a sad situation you placed yourself into, Mr. Faux WOW Man.”
[b]Neoprogressive Watcher:[/b] “David Greenwald is clearly a card carrying member of the Parlin Development political and marketing team. What is being passed off here as “investigative reporting,” is just David laundering Parlin talking points. The pattern is becoming tedious.”
[b]Ad Hominem attacks prove weakness:[/b] “Faux WOW Man – your vindictive and petty name calling is shameful. You sound like a jealous teenager and any reasonable statements in your rant collapse under the weight of your ridiculous behavior. Go sit in the corner until you can form a logically sound argument.”
[b]Winning a J Vote:[/b] “The County Sup race is going to be interesting. Sue wants to run? her opposition to this project feels like a direct attack on all of the environmental programs that so many of us have fought for. She will have a committee all right, a committe of one, because the rest of her supporters are going to be taking a pass, or endorsing Don Saylor, or at least quietly voting for him. He is going to run on the greenest project that Davis has seen in over 30 years, since Village Homes, and Sue is sitting on the dais in the forums, having to explain away her horrible vote on a mere technicality (“poor me, I could not get my homework done, it’s too late, I have to go to bed now” !!) ?????”
[b]Another Way of Looking At It:[/b] “Perhaps Souza is in the pocket of Whitcomb, who does not want to see WHR succeed, bc it will be that much harder to push through Covell Village Redux?”
[b]To DG:[/b] “I don’t think the concern is that you are a “pawn” of the developers. Given the interactions between Ritter & Associates, The Vanguard, and Parlin Development, the concern is that you are partnered with the developers.”
[b]Disgusted but alone?:[/b] “You (DG) are again being intellectually dishonest with your arguments; you decry the fact that the Council hastily improved the project, but make no objections to Lamar Heystek’s “12th hour” motion to move the project to a Measure J vote even after Ruth had concerns; then you say that the “applicant” had no control in the process, yet clearly Ruth asks the developer (John Tallman) his “choice” as to whether thet preferred a Nov or later election (April or June), and he tells her to proceed with Lamar’s motion (Nov election, with less of a turnout, and greater chance for them for approval); stop your one-sided criticism of Sue Greenwald, Souza, Dunning; and just for once all and declare your unabashed support for this project, due to you and your wife’s affiliation with Bill Ritter…you are a truly dishonest “investigative reporter.”
[b]Joe developer:[/b] “Matt, where have you been!! We developers love your fiscal logic. Keep it up so we can use it in our next big project!”
Rich – I attempted to remove the worst of the posts about Sue but was severly chastised for censoring people’s comments on the blog and in person. I resigned from monitoring responsibilities after that. This was early on when there seemed to be people trolling the Internet to see how offensive they could be and David asked a few people to monitor the blog and remove the posts. Sort of like cleaning up graffiti. The posts addressing Sue’s mental status had crossed the line, in my opinion, but I took some heat for removing them. After that, I believe David brought on an advisory board to address this and other issues. I would prefer that people use their names when posting. If people want to be allowed to post annonymously, then a certain amount of censureship is neccessary to limit abuse. I always laugh when someone complains about their annonymous offensive post being removed. They just don’t get that they need to convey their idea in a different way.
the EFF is your friend,
having brought about for all to freely use:
[url]www.torproject.org[/url]
Readers wishing to understand techical aspects of anonymity may also wish to consume things from [url]www.2600.com[/url] … pore thru the free archive of Off The Hook radio shows to find discussions of [u]tor[/u].
And if youre as yet unaware, [url]www.slashdot.org[/url] is indispensable.
[quote]I tend to agree with Greg’s comments above. Almost none of the posters who do so without providing their names are ever giving an opinion which would put their professional lives at stake. Rather, the tendency to post under a false name simply is an invitation to make mean-spirited comments about other members of our community, usually someone they don’t agree with politically.[/quote]
I completely disagree. Although certainly a higher percentage of anonymous bloggers lack tack, nuance and civility, I don’t think they are cowards; they are more likely passionate realists sensing personal and professional risk from the tyranny of political correctness police (in Davis, that would be the majority), or they are just pissed off. The fallout from the passing of prop-8 should be a lesson to everyone that some special interest groups will gleefully and tirelessly work to destroy the lives and careers of those they suspect disagree.
It seems the political and social debate in this country is growing more acrimonious as the sakes increase. I think we all need to learn the art of respectful and non-personal debate, while we also grow thicker skin which enables us to extract the real meaning from the less artistic and more rancorous whom wishes to remain anonymous.
However, until that happens, I see the value of a community blog as a place to capture the overall opinion flavor of the community. And so I value all posts… even crude rants from anonymous sources. David can certainly decide to disallow anonymous postings, but then it would be a different blog.
David: Nothing more effective than potential litigation to incite us to scurry to our burrows. You’ve done a great job (and only three years?).
You & Vanguard are such a large part of our community fabric that it seems you have been with us for decades(i.,e., you should have been; we needed you as part of our community), and now you are.
Keep up the good fight & the good work.
Thanks for everything you do.
Rick Rifkin wrote:[quote]cowards who post anonymously[/quote]So, Rich, ad hominem attacks are OK as long as you use your own name?
Somehow I prefer the raw dialog (coming largely) from anonymous posters to this kind of sanctimonious pap.
David Greenwald wrote:[quote]yet again I am reminded of the original mission of the Vanguard and remain steadfast in my belief that people ought to have a place and a public space to air their views without fear of personal retribution and there we remain as committed as ever to protecting the rights of people to post anonymously[/quote]I sincerely applaud David for sticking to this ideal, and providing a place to safely discuss politically charged issues (particularly those involving potential corruption and duplicity within the progressive community) … even though he has to endure the discomfort of routinely being hoisted on his own petard.
How can the statement “cowards who post anonymously” possibly be an ad hominem attack in a thread that is about anaonymous posting?
[quote]So, Rich, ad hominem attacks are OK as long as you use your own name? [/quote]Let me fill you in on the English language. An “ad hominem” attack is made against a man (or a woman). An attack [i]cannot[/i] be ad hominem if it is made against a pseudonym. Therefore, my calling people who attack others while hiding behind a fake name cowards is not in itself ad hominem. Yet even if you don’t understand common English and insist an attack against a pseudonym is [i]ad hominem,[/i] then I would say, “Yes, it is okay, as long as it is made in response to an attack which was launched against a real, live member of our community.”
[quote]I don’t think they are cowards; they are more likely passionate realists sensing personal and professional risk from the tyranny of political correctness police [/quote]This is unsupported by the facts, Jeff. Is it in the name of political incorrectness when someone anonymously attacks someone else (admittedly, attacking another pseudonym in this case), by saying, “You sound like a jealous teenager and any reasonable statements in your rant collapse under the weight of your ridiculous behavior. Go sit in the corner until you can form a logically sound argument”?
The only anonymous poster I can think of who was, for Davis, strictly bucking the politically correct line in a thread (or in this person’s case, numerous threads) was the person who adamantly attacked the California Supreme Court’s original ruling on gay marriage and later supported the proposition which overturned it. Perhaps there are others, but that is the one which comes to mind.
Most anonymous posters and pseudonymous posters write nothing offensive. I tend to think they fear ridicule more than retribution, because they don’t know how to coherently articulate their views.
However, the minority of people who hide behind a false name attack members of our community — calling Sue crazy or questioning David’s motives for his opinions or attacking some member of the city staff whom they deem malevolent — are cowards in my view. I think they don’t have the guts to put their name behind these vicious opinions.
I forgot to mention pedantic pap.
Thanks for the reminder.
[quote]I forgot to mention pedantic pap. [/quote]More evidence of the cowardice of the anonymous posters. He’s a gutless coward. He’s afraid of being exposed for who he is. Jeff Boone perhaps considers this poltroon someone who is a “realist sensing personal and professional risk from the tyranny of political correctness police.” Really? How in hell does he face personal and political risk calling me names?
I did [u]not[/u] call you names. I said your attacks of anonymous posting were sanctimonious and pedantic pap.
You, however, have called me a:
1) gutless coward
2) poltroon
Drawing the line between destructive and uncivil remarks and unpleasant but valid truths is indeed very difficult, but it is important. When a discussion degenerates into absurd personal attacks, people stop reading the blog. But if all reference to personal behavior and motivation are censored, important issues involving elected officials or candidates or other citizens who influence policy decisions would remain unexplored or unexplained.
For example, saying that Sue Greenwald is crazy or Don Saylor is a sociopath is personal slander. However, even that is a gray area. If Adolph Hitler were our leader, shouldn’t we be able to point out that he is crazy and a sociopath? For example, if Ruth Asmundson is petty, rude, not following council procedure and is treating the public and various members of the city council unfairly during meetings, then the public, who by and large don’t watch the meetings, would have no way of knowing that she has been a bad mayor. But, if we allow this, there is no way to keep people from making the false statement that Lamar Heystek is petty, rude and insulting during meetings.
If an elected leader or political activist is committed to furthering the agenda of special interests or one or many developers, this is important for people to know. But discussing it will certainly involve some remarks which will sound personally insulting to those who like the elected leader or political activist.
These are very tough issues to grapple with.
In the end, a blog will gain a reputation based on the accuracy, honesty and insightfulness with which issues are covered, and the judgment employed when discerning which remarks are useless and crude, and which are negative but important to the discussion at hand. Finally, blogs are usually more interesting when the blogger has an up front, clear and consistent political position.
“You, however, have called me a …”
How can he call you anything when he doesn’t know who you are? He called your moniker and persona names, but not you.
To Jeff Boone:[quote]I don’t think they are cowards; they are more likely passionate realists sensing personal and professional risk from the tyranny of political correctness police[/quote]Jeff: I completely agree, and think your position [u]is[/u] supported by the facts.
As previous posters have pointed out, I would explain why I agree with you, except that I can’t coherently articulate my views. Also, being a coward, I’m very afraid of ridicule from the people that post under their own names.
On a more serious note, I would also highlight another part of your comment (don’t you just love it when people validate your contribution to the dialog instead of dismissing your entire post out of hand with a little lecture)[quote]some special interest groups will gleefully and tirelessly work to destroy the lives and careers of those they suspect disagree[/quote]This sums up the play book of some elements in the Davis progressive community pretty well (just read the articles and comments on Don Saylor). It’s a very real problem. I chose to post anonymously rather than be driven from the public square. While I admit that the veil of anonymity does tend to somewhat relax the normal rhetorical constraints, that goes with the territory and (at least in the opinion of some) makes the blog more interesting and informative.
I realize that these views are highly offensive to the political correctness police, so … let the bloviating begin!
To Anonymous,[quote]If an elected leader or political activist is committed to furthering the agenda of special interests or one or many developers, this is important for people to know. But discussing it will certainly involve some remarks which will sound personally insulting to those who like the elected leader or political activist.[/quote]IMO this is the root source of the vitriol being directed at anonymous posting. Unless you are Bob Dunning, most of us aren’t in a position to withstand the personal and professional consequences of daring to discuss this under our real names. It’s like a Republican questioning the war in Iraq during the Bush administration.
Rich, you listed some “attacks” that you thought were not appropriate. I agree with you on a couple of them, but some of them are right-on-the-money political analysis. Hey, Steve chose to call Parlin the day before the election, after refusing to meet or talk with them for two weeks, and make a list of project-killing demands. (Flat out political extrotion.)
Both of them had made up their minds long before to vote against the project. Everyone knew it …. and then they sit up there and complain about the hour as an excuse?? Rich, dont give them a pass about this.
Sue chose not to vote for the greenest project in 30 years. Don is walking right into that Sups job. Everyone knows it. It’s almost like … Sue is flopping back and forth to run or not, so psychologically she is using her vote-down-the-next-Village-Homes tactic to destroy her chances of running and winning. She knew it before going into that 7/28 CC meeting. Everyone knew it.
Steve chose to call himself Mr. Wow, and then he gets to vote on real wow, and turns to dishonest political mush.
Rich, those people want to sit up there and vote, then they have better vote with valid points. Hey, if you are Suzie Boyd, and you vote 100% for every project “because we need more housing,” then at least that is a valid and straightforward point of view. You voted for Suzie, you knew what you were getting.
In contrast to Suzie’s “what you see is what you get,” in my view, Steve and Sue’s trashing the developer for the late hour of the project is simply political cynicism and gamesmanship at its worst. Parlin had nothing to do with that time slot.
Did anonymous posters on this Blog force Mr. Wow into his crazy vote, full of open and obvious hyprocracy? No! He did it to himself.
So give us a break. Most of the comments are true, and politically right on the money.
Shortly before the vote on the Wildhorse Horse Ranch, Mike Harrington called me over to his table at the Farmers’ Market and said that if I supported the Parlin project, I would have the support of himself and the rest of his “progressive” crowd for a campaign the county supervisor position.
I told him that I was offended by this quid pro quo offer, and its’ implication that they would not support me if I did not vote for the project.
Make note: The Board of Supervisors controls growth the county land surrounding surrounding Davis. The last I heard, Parlin owns land in the Northwest quadrant, which is county land to the northwest Davis. Assuming that Parlin still owns that land, the next supervisor will also be in a position to help Parlin develop that land.
Why does it not surprise to read posts such as the one above, and others recently, stating and/or implying that I would not have support to run for the board of supervisors because I opposed this project.
Sue why are you posting anonymously? That’s pretty transparent.
I wrote the above note.
The above post by Anonymous 7:30 p.m. exemplifies the reason that anonymity has its uses. What if, hypothetically, Sue Greenwald had written that post? Although the issues above are substantive, if Sue Greenwald had written and signed post, she would have become the issue, and the ideas would have fallen by the wayside. The discussion of the difficulty of drawing the line between destructive and uncivil remarks and unpleasant but valid truths would have ceased.
I have not decided how I feel about the issue of anonymity. It is a very interesting question.
I intentionally and also unintentionally held back from discussing until now. Unintentionally because I had other engagements during the day, but intentionally because I wanted to see where the discussion would go.
Sharla describes well a problem that emerged early on in the blog. One thing to remember and bear in mind is that this has always been kind of a work in progress, where I am feeling my way along. I would like to think we have all learned from that early experience and for the most part have avoided those pitfalls.
There are really difficult decisions in terms of what to delete and what to not delete. I have always tried to err on the side of leaving stuff up. Public figures, particularly elected officials such as Sue, Lamar, Don, etc. are always more tricky because there is not the expectation of privacy and there is an expectation of greater scrutiny and ability to criticize.
I have also tried to leave all posts up attacking and criticizing me, much to the consternation of my mother who gets very offended at times when people say some of the things they do. I have found I am rarely offended by things people say unless I both know and respect the individual’s opinion. But the bottom line is that I certainly dish out a lot of criticism here and I expect to take it in return and generally it is not a problem.
I understand Rich’s point that most anonymous posts really do not need to be. I agree. I think most people can and should post under their own name. I think people who do get more credibility certainly in terms of information provided and definitely in terms of an opinion. I suppose that if one established a single moniker and used it over time consistently and developed a reputation, one could bypass that issue. That’s something for people to consider.
On Doug Paul Davis, I used the moniker for a lot of reasons early, the chief one is that I was teaching at the time and did not want my students to stumble on stuff. But there was also a element that I did not fully trust the Davis public after I saw what my wife went through in early 2006 and some of the horrible things people said about her in public, in the newspapers, and in private. I was not ready to become a face yet and it was only over time that I became more comfortable in that role. I have always in a way been a shy and private person and really not sought the spotlight, but as time went on it became more and more onerous to continue to use the moniker and I found myself having to explain to new people the use of the pen name. By that time, it was a well known fact and I simply found it easier to drop the pen though.
Finally, I think there are occasions that do require anonymity and at the end of the day, to protect those situations, it enables people to use it for less necessary persons and even abuse it.
I think most posters here are extremely intelligent and discerning and for the most part cheap shots are treated as they should be or ignored altogether.
I guess in the end, I am proud of what I have created without giving much forethought on July 30, 2006, and in a way this is a good summation for the beginning of the fourth year of the Vanguard.
[i]I think most people can and should post under their own name. … Finally, I think there are occasions that do require anonymity and at the end of the day[/i]
Great. That’s all that any of us are asking for. All that you have to do to bring things closer to this ideal is to require commenters to register. And when they register, you can have a message such as “We prefer that you use your real name in most cases. You can register under a pseudonym if it is important.”
The interface that you have now doesn’t do this. Despite the “Terms of Usage”, what the interface says is, “Look how easy it is to post anonymously. You could also use your real name if you prefer that. Or you could register, although it’s a bit of a hassle.”
[i]But there was also a element that I did not fully trust the Davis public after I saw what my wife went through in early 2006 and some of the horrible things people said about her in public, in the newspapers, and in private.[/i]
The anonymous potshots in the Davis Vanguard against city councilmembers and city staff have gone a long way towards evening the score.
Jeff Boone describes the people who write these things as “passionate realists”. I don’t see what kind of realism would lead someone to say that a city councilmember is having a midlife crisis. It’s passionate all right, but is this “passion” sincere? Some of these hecklers probably think of Davis politics as a big joke. They aren’t necessarily part of “the community” either; some of them might only have lived in Davis a while back.
[i]I suppose that if one established a single moniker and used it over time consistently and developed a reputation, one could bypass that issue. That’s something for people to consider.[/i]
Absolutely! Even if it weren’t the real name, it would help. But it’s impossible to do if you don’t require registration, because anyone else can borrow and distort a carefully constructed reputation simply by using the same moniker.
What are you talking about, Greg? No one could destroy my carefully constructed reputation for off-balance whackery by using my moniker.
I second Greg’s thoughts, especially with respect to consistent use of the same pseudonym. Right now things are a bit like the Tower of Babel. In the old Blog davisite was a regular poster. I miss his/her dulcet tones. It may well be that s/he is still posting, but with many voices.
I may frequently disagree with the substance and/or tone of Neoprogressive Watcher’s posts, but I do admire the way that s/he gives all of us the benefit of seeing the continuity in those posts.
David, would it be hard to implement Greg’s suggestion? People who are really concerned about being “outed” would probably desire the option of changing their registered pseudonym periodically, but hopefully your website technical team could accomodate that.
David makes his money every time somebody logs on , so if you had to post your real name ,this blog would have only 10 – 15 posters . That’s why real names don’t matter .