My main objection to this, especially in this online world, is that anonymity means no accountability. You can publicly attack others and impugn their character, orthodoxy, whatever. You can do real damage to them. You can misrepresent truth (intentionally or not), such as Catholic doctrine. You can mislead others as to your identity (and by that, I mean more than just name). You can be a total misanthrope, be hateful, spiteful, and mean. All without any personal accountability.
How unjust is it for anonymous bloggers to tell bishops, for instance, that the bishops need to "stand up for the faith" and "have some backbone," when they don't even have the backbone to identify themselves? How much more when they make sweeping statements impugning the orthodoxy and charity of vast swaths of our bishops today?
When I'm feeling generous (especially with some of these folks I consider friends), I want to believe the stated good intentions. But when I'm feeling less so, it's hard to swallow, especially when I see examples of such vitriol from anonymous bloggers--because it's just too convenient to be anonymous online. You have nothing on the line, no accountability.
So for all those--especially purportedly Catholic (although who could verify it?)--online personalities who proclaim humility in anonymity (or whatever other personal concerns you have), I urge you to search your heart again. Is there any hint of fear that you could be held to account for what you write? Even if there's not--especially if there is not--you should reconsider because the potential evil and harm to others (through malice or inculpable error) far outweighs the potential danger to yourself, your humility or privacy. Is it not, in fact, an act of charity to do so? To take risk to yourself out of concern for others? I think our Lord would say so--"no greater love has a man than that he lay down his life for another."
If you can't take that risk and accountability, I'd humbly suggest that perhaps it would be better to not blog, comment, tweet--whatever--online at all.
Yes, it's hard to take Anonymous (whose numbers are legion) seriously, and I've always loved that Slashdot's naming of anonymous posters is "anonymous coward." When I notice a dubious name I may not drop them completely, but it's a strong indicator for decreased trust.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, activism does present some physical danger in some cases. Example: http://www.jesusandmo.net/ This webcomic would not exist if anonymity was impossible, and it would be a shame. True freedom of speech requires a level of anonymity because anything worth criticizing is going to fight back, and dirty.
ReplyDeleteThis other cartoon comes to mind: http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2434
Bertrand, although I was speaking in this case more to Catholic bloggers than the general public, I remain unconvinced that anonymity is right or just when publicly criticizing others. It's too convenient. Too easy. If you don't feel strongly enough about your cause to speak up as a recognized individual, you probably don't deserve to be criticizing others.
ReplyDeleteOh, so in order to criticize something or someone you must be ready to get assassinated for it, otherwise you don't really mean it or you're a coward? Sorry, can't agree with that. I think your argument is the easy and convenient one. Oh well.
ReplyDeleteMy argument is based in justice. If you are going to publicly criticize, you should publicly identify yourself.
ReplyDeleteCertainly, you can really mean it, regardless of if you are anonymous. But if you lack the courage to personally stand behind what you want to publicly say, I'd say that's basically the dictionary definition of coward. That's assuming, of course, that your motivation for anonymity is indeed fear of personal endangerment. There are other motivations for anonymity that in themselves can be good good (such as humility or avoiding endangering others). In such cases, you could have a just reason for remaining anonymous.
In any case, what I was addressing above was primarily Catholic bloggers/social networkers, and the chance that they have such a just reason seems slim.
Yeah, I guess my point of view is different. You seem to be a virtue ethicist on that issue whereas I'm being a consequentialist. What I'm saying is that for instance if I want to criticize Islam -something that is permitted by the law in this country, and that is a healthy thing to do in a multi-religious and secular society- should I only be permitted to do so if I'm willing to live in exile and under protection for the rest of my life like Salman Rushdie or Ayan Hirsi ali? That seems a little disproportionate. The fact that the death threats are themselves illegal is irrelevant here as they are the sad reality of our world. In effect, the terrorists have successfully silenced most of the criticism against Islam.
ReplyDeleteWe have two solutions here: we can forbid anonymity because we think it's wrong on principle like you and others seem to advocate, or we can accept the adverse consequences of allowing it on the grounds that the benefits outweigh them. I value the freedom of speech if allows more than I resent the cowardice that it allows from some.
Sorry for hijacking your post, I understand this is not necessarily the discussion you wanted to have so I'll shut up now.
Thanks for explaining where you're coming from, Bertrand. In practice, I think your example could fall under "concern for others" and not just yourself. Take the example of Pope Benedict XVI, for example. In his "Regensberg Address" years ago, he quoted a medieval author that spoke harshly against Islam (http://dotnettemplar.net/On+The+Pope+And+Islam.aspx). The result of that seems to have been the death of a nun in Somalia. It seems quite possible (although the jihadis already hate the West/US, it seems) that a concern for all US/Westerners, or at least those the author is immediately associated with, could be a just cause for anonymity.
ReplyDeleteIt may be that in practice, we could agree on justifications for anonymity, although we are coming at it from different principles.
Who uses pseudonyms on G+?
ReplyDelete:P