Why Post Anonymously?
A pro-life website, Fightingirishthomas.com, has recently announced a new policy: they will no longer link to blog posts written by anonymous authors. I haven’t quite understood their rationale. But, here’s what they say:
Recently, Fighting Irish Thomas and its co-site, Cathlete.net, announced it would no longer be linking to anonymous posts. True, many of these blogs we formerly linked to were very entertaining, and others were thoroughly orthodox. Also, all of these authors seemed to have very good reasons for remaining anonymous. But in the end (or shall we say, the end-times?), none of these reasons were good enough.
First, we heard the ever-popular excuse, “I want to give God all the glory, so that’s why I don’t use my name.” Unfortunately, any bona fide Right-to-Lifer could tell you that any accolades received from the righteous are far out-weighed by the ridicule a holy soul accumulates from the Left, so “humbleness” and “anonymous-ness” can no longer be synonymous. Similarly, the “but I want my post to stand on it’s own!” claim might carry some clout if one was taking a college writing class and the professor was concerned mainly with style, but something far more important than style is at stake here. In reality, the last reason, “But I might lose my job!” (or friends, or place in society) is by far the most ominous—and often encompasses the other two. In fact the last woman we allowed to anonymously link to Cathlete.net openly admitted not only was she afraid she would lose her high-paying job if she wrote her pro-life blog under her real name, but “would probably have to move out of state and would no longer be able to take care of her ailing mother.
While we can certainly respect the gravity of such a difficult decision, we believe that, with the distinct possibility of an Obama-nation just months away, the time for anonymity among the forces of Our Blessed Mother has passed. If it is true, as Father Frank Pavone stated, that we will never overturn Roe v. Wade unless we are successful in putting faces on those formerly anonymously aborted bodies, we will also never defeat the Culture of Death if we remain nameless in our opposition. Once again, the Way of the Cross awaits, and the Lord is again asking if we are ready to risk the consequences and follow, or will we remain in the shadows with Peter, afraid to “link” our name with that of Christ. For if we do not come forth before November, I’m afraid the choice, Death (in the name of Democracy), will instead be made for us.
Again, I do not understand the rationale in this. Fr. Pavone suggests what he does about aborted babies because he recognizes the need to humanize those who are culturally dehumanized. I do not think that the same logic applies in regard to the pro-life movement vis-à-vis the blog-o-sphere.
Not that you care, but I have, personally, a simple reason for choosing to post anonymously: because the web is a diversion for me, pure and simple. It is a diversion because it is not a proper format for in-depth discussion. It is thus not my life, and it is not worth ruining my life over. It is not worth ruining my career over. Who in their right mind would think that the maintenance of an out-in-the-open weblog is more important than a person’s career?
Anonymous web posting is certainly no moral failure. It is not intrinsically evil. By the same token, web posts written by authors whose identity is known are not going to keep us safe from the communist hordes unleashed in an Obama-nation. That will require real, honest-to-goodness resistance in the real world. Someone in the cyber world might very well tell us when and where to show up. But it is in the real world where the battle will be fought. So, I say: keep your real life in tact; keep your cyber life private, if you deem it necessary.
.jpg)
Hierothee, I echo your sentiments.
The man has every right to link to whom ever he sees fit, but his nuanced chastisement of anonymous posters as cowards and betrayers of Christ is way out of line, in my opinion. It sounds as though he feels he’s all alone in the fight against abortion, and appears to be so focused on what he thinks others aren’t doing, he’s probably unaware that his own tactics and attitudes could be chasing people away. It’s attitudes like this which ultimately damage the pro-life movement from within. A little patience and humility can go a long way to motivate and change hearts and attitudes.
Comment by shelray — July 27, 2008 @ 9:01 pm
My only objection: My nom de web is more easily traced than my given name– which is very popular, first and last.
Comment by Foxfier — July 28, 2008 @ 12:05 am
Hierothee,
“No one can serve two masters. He will either hate one and love the other, or be devoted to one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon… Whoever wishes to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will save it. What profit would there be for one to gain the whole world and forfeit his life.”
+++
Who in their “right mind,” you ask, would “ruin their life” for the sake of the Kingdom? None other than the Person I just quoted…
You say this “blog” is just a “diversion” for you. Does that mean your Catholicism is just a diversion from your “real life” as well?
Your intellectual dissertations on the differences between Augustine and Aquinas may all be well and good for your academic acquaintances. But, as someone named after both Aquinas and Augustine, I ask; if a real youth (and the Web is a great — if not always good — source of information for them) comes searching for Truth on your site and sees you don’t even have the spiritual guts to reveal your true name, why should he respect your faith any more than the woman respect Peter’s faith during Our Lord’s Passion when he thrice denied Christ? To divert attention by saying the Net is not the real world is nothing but another dodge, for although in-person witness and protests are certainly important (and I do not neglect these either), if words were NOT, the reading and learning of Sacred Scripture would be in vain…
In everything we do, we must fearlessly witness to Christ, and if you think the Web is just a diversion that does not influence what is right, you are wrong.
Comment by Thomas Augustine O'Toole — July 28, 2008 @ 10:15 am
Thomas,
I find that my personal discernment between moral cowardice and authentic prudence takes much reflection, continual examination of conscience, evaluation of motivations, especially prayer. I find it a bit rash on your part to appear to do that for Hierothee (and all other anonymous authors) for whom you do have inadequate insight to make such judgments.
I am afraid that you appear to wish to remove everyone’s prudential judgment in these matters and substitute your own. This is not only unreasonable, it does not accord with Church teaching. Only if this were a matter of violating an absolute moral norm could you make such a sweeping assertion. To decide unequivocally for everyone else is quite wrong. You certainly are free to decide what you want to link to on your websites. You also can legitimately ask anonymous authors to prayerfully consider their motivations for remaining anonymous. However, you may not carte blanche, accuse them of “spiritual cowardice.”
I agree with you that fearlessly witnessing to Christ is every Christian’s call. However, I do not agree with you that every author who wishes to remain anonymous, for a variety of reasons, fails in this regard. Prudence is a virtue that God calls everyone to exercise in order to perfect themselves…i.e. become holy. One can advise others in this regard but he cannot exercise this virtue for them.
Comment by David — July 28, 2008 @ 11:26 am
Thomas hopefully each in their own time does what they can do for the faith. I fail to see how requiring these bloggers to reveal their true identities does anything to help the grave situation the US is in. If these people were, lets say senators or other officials with power, I can see encouraging them to witness publicly. However, in my opinion, to dismiss the above woman’s concerns about taking care of her mother is unfair to say the least. From what I gather you do not personally know Hierothee either so you do not know what the consequences of revealing his identity would be. I say continue your stand against the grave evil of abortion, and lead by example - perhaps in time others will follow.
Comment by TipoftheSpear — July 28, 2008 @ 1:45 pm
TAO-
How do you jump from the internet not being her life to her being unwilling to serve God?
Wouldn’t conflating the web with God be dangerously close to making it a false god?
Hierothee’s writing should be measured on its own merit– not on if the name is one that would be recognized face-to-face.
I must wonder– would you also be angry at early Christians, who met in secret? They kept their heads down because to do otherwise would have a rather negative effect on them, to no good effect for the Church.
Comment by Foxfier — July 28, 2008 @ 1:53 pm
Thomas,
Because you know nothing about me, let me tell you a little somehing about myself. The maintenance of my career, which is currently on shaky enough ground as it is, is far more valuable to the pro-life movement than anything that I can say on the web, or that you can say, or that can be said by all of the pro-life weblogs put together.
By the way, how can you so blithely condemn the position of that young woman whose career would be at stake were she to reveal her identity? Do you not realize that it is far more important to the pro-life movement that she take care of her mother than that she maintain a weblog? The pro-life movement is not only a movement in defense of the unborn: it is a movement in defense of all of those who are unable to care for themselves and whose lives are in real danger in a society that values utility as the highest moral good.
Comment by hierothee — July 28, 2008 @ 2:12 pm
Thomas,
At the risk of appearing to be “piling on,” another thing I would like to mention is the distinction between certain types of actions that Heirothee was pointing to. You point to a capacity for the cyber world to affect thinking. It certainly does. However, for the most part, St. Blog’s is a venue in which the vast majority of participants, it appears to me, are like minded Catholics who support one another in the truths of the faith, debate and discuss related issues, and in many ways, help to further educate and nurture one another. It has a good purpose, but I do not think that it is a venue for transforming the culture because it simply does not attract those who need to transform their thinking, and when it does, it is not a forum for reasoned and thoughtful intercourse.
Let me provide an example of the type of actions that are necessary that do much more concrete good among those who need to be reached, particularly with respect to the prolife movement. Shelray is one of our contributers and chooses to maintain his anonymity. However, he and his wife are out in front of an abortion clinic in San Antonio every time it is performing abortions. They, along with other sidewalk counselors, talk to women and men going into the clinic, and in the process face abuse regularly. However, they also have saved at least 18 babies from being “terminated” in the last year. Just a week ago a man drove up in a truck and thanked them, telling them that thanks to their witness his grandchild was going to be born within the next few months. A number of months earlier, his daughter had gone to the clinic and has seen the public witness of people praying and offering their kind support. All of this caused her to change her mind about killing her baby.
This incarnate dialog is much more effective than any cyber rhetoric that Shelray could have provided. In terms of a name, he (as were the others present) was just as anonymous in person as he is on the blog. However, if his anonymity on the blog can allow him to continue his presence at the clinic, then it is clear to me that his prudential judgment to remain anonymous is validated. Putting himself in a situation in which he could be arrested and is sometimes verbally assaulted demonstrate the decision has nothing to do with “spiritual cowardice.”
Hopefully the exchange here provides you with some additional food for thought on this issue.
Comment by David — July 28, 2008 @ 2:47 pm
I ask; if a real youth (and the Web is a great — if not always good — source of information for them) comes searching for Truth on your site and sees you don’t even have the spiritual guts to reveal your true name, why should he respect your faith any more than the woman respect Peter’s faith during Our Lord’s Passion when he thrice denied Christ?
I hope Thomas Will forgive us if we take offense at his tirade.
Comment by Matt, Mark, Luke, John — July 28, 2008 @ 3:22 pm
I respect those who choose to post anonymously, even if I don’t, for personal spiritual reasons.
It would be very easy for me to resort to some fairly wicked nastiness if I didn’t attach my name to things. I have a tendency to lose my patience and sense of charity over two things: idiocy and intellectual dishonesty. This blog and many others tend to tackle subjects containing these two “hot spots” on a regular basis. I write what I do, fully aware that my bishop or any other authority over my status as a seminarian can see what I do. It’s worked out for me fairly well for about six years now.
So, as David says, it really comes down to the prudent judgment of the individual. Those who do not struggle against the same things I do can easily post anonymously - especially if they function in an academic environment.
God knows that if I’d gone to Columbia to work on a Ph.D. as I’d originally intended, you certainly wouldn’t see “Josh Miller” after this post. Not out of any sense of cowardice, but rather, as a means of survival in a nest of vipers, until such a time as I was able to avoid their strikes.
Comment by Josh Miller — July 29, 2008 @ 2:59 pm
Certainly anonymity on the Web is not sinful in and of itself. Many bloggers read our new policy and simply, politely (and quietly) declined, but it was your attempt, like the rich young man, to justify yourself that inspires this ire. Personally, I find your shift in position, from the Web being a mere “diversion” to a stance of maintaining a job “far more valuable to the pro-life movement than anything that I can say on the web, or that you can say, or that can be said by all of the pro-life weblogs put together” another overblown attempt of justification, but we’ll see.
No, I do not mind the “piling on” (for they treated the prophets in the same way) and no, I do not put this in the category of the earlier catacomb Catholics, for they lost not only their livelihoods, but their lives, when they were revealed. And, of course, they not only were unafraid to reveal their identities at that point, but considered it a blessing to die for their Lord — a position we may too find ourselves in if this Democratic pro-choice demon is elected …
Ironically, Hierothee, your response and the mob mentality it unleashed has brought you to the point that I originally sought. For the question, after all this attention to your anonymity, has now changed. It is now as if you are walking by an abortion mill, at a time of great pro-life protest, and a youth, considering an abortion seems to recognize you. “Hey, aren’t you _________ ________ , the CEO of ___________ Corporation?” she asks hopefully in front of an inquiring reporter. Knowing that your honesty could help this girl’s decision, but also get your name plastered all over the newspaper (as well as all over the Web), would you reveal yourself now?
Although your persistent protests and the self-righteous riot it has provoked has thus far only produced this situation on the Web, know that there are plenty of youths who follow my blog who are now reading this, awaiting your response. While your self-imposed publicity now makes it nearly impossible for you to remain in the shadows, coming out would have a heroic effect on the young and old pro-lifers alike. Fighting Irish Thomas will be praying for you …
Comment by Tom O'Toole — July 30, 2008 @ 4:43 pm
“Self-righteous”?
“Mob mentality”?
For that matter, YOU are accusing HER of shifting the point?
…Old, favorite quote…Beam…eye…mote….
Comment by Foxfier — July 30, 2008 @ 5:10 pm
Tom,
Really, this is a bit over the top. Unless you can point to someplace other than this thread, your hyperbole (”self-righteous riot.” comparing polite disagreement with your position with martyrs of old, etc.) strains one’s ability to take you seriously.
Your accusatory approach is quite uncalled for. There are a variety of complementary ways that all are working toward the same goal. You are in error to claim your way is the only valid approach.
Comment by David — July 30, 2008 @ 6:06 pm
I am RC, conservative, pro-life, and none of that has ANYTHING to do with my position on this issue. I generally support Thomas’s POV (although I would widen its application), and I also get the rebuttals offered by those invested in their personal status quo. I just don’t think your concerns are important when compared to a much larger and more significant issue.
My position is not directly in response to either position expressed, however. Over the years I have become strongly disapproving of anonymous blogs, comments, discussion board threads, and websites in general for reasons I believe transcend and supersede in importance all of your arguments, pro or con.
The degree of irresponsible, flat-out lying about others on the Internet while justifying it by citing free-speech 1st Amendment rights is criminal, and has proven elusive to all attempts to stop it and hold accountable its evil perpetrators. Before you get your panties in a twist that I’m indicting all the wonderful anon bloggers who hide their identities for alleged benign purposes greater than their equally alleged cowardice, the same condition that allows such abuse of anonymity also permits you your more benign use of the same condition.
Comment boxes on blogs everywhere - political, Catholic, Christian, ALL types - are heavily trolled by legions of anon hit & run types who are nothing less than digital “hit men.” I’d like to believe that these folks are primarily left-wingers, and I suspect that’s basically true, but human nature dictates that we conservatives are bound to have supplied a few of our own to perform similar misguided duty on the leftie blogs in retaliation.
This practice allows character association to run rampant. Worst of all, however, is the practice of anonymous web sites run by those who make outrageous lying claims about others (political opponents, & more importantly, the Church) with now personal name or even an address (brick & mortar) to be found.
I submit to ALL of you - while stipulating that ALL of you do good works with your blogs (and have very good reasons to desire anonymity) - that the very condition that allows you to do so is the EXACT SAME condition that permits the abuses I enumerated above - abuses that pre-date the existence of the blogosphere all the way back to the earliest days of the Internet.
If you can conceive - AND execute (or at least offer a workable infrastructure that will deliver the goods) - a plan by which we can shut down the tsunami of abuse that rolls across the Internet that is made possible by anonymous posts (blogs, comments, & discussion board threads) and web sites, then I have no problem with your practice.
Until that time I do not rely on Thomas’s line of thinking to absolutely refuse to sympathize or other wise support your collective and individually self-centered positions on the subject, which fail to account for your own contributions to a long term problem far greater and of longer duration than your own very small impact on the Internet.
I say strip away ALL Internet anonymity for the greater good. Like all other instances where individual considerations must be trampled for the sake of a larger good, it’s more important to clean up this cesspool. Remember, the best disinfectant is sunshine.
If everyone is forced to play by rules of open identity then we’ll actually have some prospect of achieving a level of responsible participatory democracy online.
I am not stripping you of your rights to opine online with my proposal. I support your right to opine, however, I believe a real, working democracy ties your right to the responsibility to tell us who you are so we are protected from very real abuse.
As Rick said in Casablanca, “the individual concerns of three little people don’t amount to a hill of beans compared to the larger issues of WWII.” Or, that’s how he would have put it if I had written the screenplay for this particular scenario…lol!
Comment by Phil Steinacker — August 31, 2008 @ 10:31 pm
Phil,
I understand your concerns, but I would argue that the sage wisdom of the Church which teaches that abuse demands not disuse applies also to this situation.
Comment by David — September 1, 2008 @ 10:05 am
David,
With all due respect, your response made no sense to me at all. I can isolate “abuse demands not disuse” as the phrase you suggest applies but it is not clear. Sorry, but if that does in fact make any sense then it appears to be an arcane phrase lifted from Church documents and applied here out of context.
I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt; let’s assume that’s the case. This is an Internet-wide problem, and therefore a society-wide problem. It is not isolated to the Church, and the Church does not have any more or less dominion over this than over anything else. I don’t challenge the authority of Church teaching, but not all Church teaching is of the same level of authority or priority; i.e. abortion vs. death penalty or anti-war teachings.
I hardly see Church teaching providing you support for hiding your identity for any reason. I don’t recall Christ addressing it. Imagine how much more effective Peter & Paul might have been had they been able to effectively apply the same thinking to their altogether far more serious scenarios than your own. Yjey could have extended the length of their Apostolic mission by years.
Sorry, I don’t buy it. They stepped up to the plate and didn’t shrink from it. You need to do the same, and stop hiding behind the skirts of the Church by allegedly citing Church “teachings” you can’t explain well.
Still lacking clarity about your meaning, and struck by the paucity of depth in your “rebuttal” I can only assume you cavalierly dismissed my concerns without actual point-by-point refutation because you know you’re unable to do so.
Citing without clarity so-called Church teaching as the basis for that dismissal hardly constitutes justification. Exactly which Church teaching exhorts or encourages Catholics to stand down rather than stand up for truth? Kindly point out to me the source in Canon Law or the documents of ANY council that provide a Catholic Church Field Manual of Spiritual Guerilla Warfare that honors hiding your name when “fighting” underground for Christ and His Kingdom. I’m sure you can show us several “hit & run” tactics favored by the early martyrs…ooops, that’s right! If those brave men & women had such tactics we wouldn’t be calling them martyrs.
Sorry, friend…I don’t know your politics, but your thin retort is all too typical of what passes for the liberal “thinking” that extols the primacy of one’s conscience over Church Law, the Commandments, and hard teachings of the Church. Such tripe usually seeks to disregard completely the requisite of having developed a “well-formed” conscience first.
If you are not such a liberal I apologize, but then I must advise you to rethink how you arrive at such an inappropriate justification of your personal preference while crutching on Church teaching to excuse it.
If you are able to offer something more clear or solid than your Johnny One-note of a post, I will examine it, and if legitimately persuasive I will withdraw my statement, with appropriate apologies all around.
However, I suspect the nature of your short fly ball tells the whole story. I suggest if you can’t stand up, then you should – by all rights – stand down and leave the field to those willing to proclaim His truth without fear of identification. This is a vocation not well-suited to those who want their cake while they eat it, too. Spare me your attempt to have it your own way while refusing to acknowledge your methodology as part of a far more destructive problem than those you hope to fix by hiding beneath the skirts of Holy Mother Church.
Comment by Phil Steinacker — September 1, 2008 @ 12:22 pm
Abusus non tollit usum
abuse does not take away use, i.e., is not an argument against proper use
Clearly, as shown by the Bishops of China, anonymity isn’t inherently improper.
Thus, one can’t insist that nobody is allowed to be anonymous just because a few folks use it to be jerks, or you don’t think they’ve got enough at risk to justify it.
Comment by Foxfier — September 1, 2008 @ 12:42 pm
Side note-
I don’t WANT any kind of a “participatory democracy” online. I like the internet because there are many things to read, and nobody is being voted off the island, so to speak.
Right now, with the anonymity, there is nothing but what folks actually write to judge them on– and I LIKE that. I’ve got an annoying voice in person, but online it ain’t so.
Comment by Foxfier — September 1, 2008 @ 12:48 pm
Foxfier,
I made reference to online “participatory democracy” because elsewhere on the Internet and for many years that is one of the most frequently cited values advanced and shared by the online community. However, it is not the central thrust of my argument.
That central argument is that anonymity online has allowed and continues to allow massive damage to reputations on the one hand, and irresponsible advancement of extremely destructive ideas that inflict terrible damage to our culture, our country, to teens and younger children, and included in all of that - in this case - to our Church and the faithful.
I am not arguing against the benign motives and purposes expressed by you and others here. I AM saying that we all pay a price because the damage inflicted via these abuses is far greater than the perceived limited benefit of anonymity experienced by a few (such as yourselves). Those benefits are of an individual nature, which amounts making your argument by elevating personal prerogatives to the level of principle. You aren’t a bad person for wanting what you want, but creating an environment where people feel free to express anything without regard to their responsibility for doing so has been perpetrating terribly destructive damage to all of us.
It’s another manifestation of the old common good theme. Considering the truth of human nature, if you feel constrained from writing something online with your name attached to it, it’s better for all if you then keep it to yourself. Attribution to a real identifiable human being inevitably will reduce the harm done to all of us. I understand the relative inconvenience to those who wish anonymity for various reasons, but adults take responsibility for their own words and actions even when inconvenient.
For example, in most jurisdictions it’s against the law for adults to wear masks in public not because doing so directly hurts anyone, but because doing so is most often the prelude to armed robbery - a greater harm inflicted upon the community as a whole on many levels. The side effect is that those silly adults who wish to wear masks in public (except Halloween, and even then in some places) are denied the right to be silly while not actually hurting anyone.
The sentiments expressed here so far are tantamount to declaring a desire to continue wearing your masks, and you justify your claim by highlighting nothing stronger than your own personal preferences, or the obfuscation of citing unclear Church teaching, as in David’s case.
Don’t assume an overriding benefit to the totally free expression found in unalloyed online commentary. Hitler got his start on a soapbox in the streets, and it took a few years to cultivate enough support to morph into critical mass in time to elect him in 1932. Just think how the same dynamic can grow like fire on the Internet today. We haven’t seen it yet, but human nature doesn’t change - only the technology available to exploit it does.
As for you, your voice problem is understood, but the anon question doesn’t prevent you from posting online where even those who know you won’t likely be thinking of your voice. Typing creates its own “tone.”
I must say, the Catholic blogosphere seems full of erudite folks capable of citing all kinds of deep arguments or vague Church teachings, but most of it seems in service to supporting individual opinions and preferences instead of being founded upon first principles that will usually place a Catholic in the uncomfortable position where doing what’s right is in direct conflict with what he wants. If you’re Catholic, and you don’t routinely live that experience, you might scrap everything you thought you knew about the mandates of your faith and build anew. Begin with running your “well-formed” conscience through a diagnostic.
Comment by Phil Steinacker — September 1, 2008 @ 2:03 pm
That central argument is that anonymity online has allowed and continues to allow massive damage to reputations on the one hand, and irresponsible advancement of extremely destructive ideas that inflict terrible damage to our culture, our country, to teens and younger children, and included in all of that - in this case - to our Church and the faithful.
As have books, TV and unsupervised conversations.
I am not arguing against the benign motives and purposes expressed by you and others here. I AM saying that we all pay a price because the damage inflicted via these abuses is far greater than the perceived limited benefit of anonymity experienced by a few (such as yourselves).
Please feel free to tell those mourning the blogger know, among other names, as “Rania” that there are few and limited benefits to anonymity. She was able to do a lot, annonymously, until her father figured out she was Christian and murdered her.
Those benefits are of an individual nature, which amounts making your argument by elevating personal prerogatives to the level of principle.
You are elivating your preferances to the level of moral requirements– and insulting rather than persuading. What’s more, you are not refering back to Church teachings to make your point, but instead insist that because you can see a way that something can be misused, it must not be used.
You are guilty of exactly what you accuse others of; if not, please feel free to show binding Church teachings to back up your desires.
Yet another side not:
For example, in most jurisdictions it’s against the law for adults to wear masks in public not because doing so directly hurts anyone, but because doing so is most often the prelude to armed robbery - a greater harm inflicted upon the community as a whole on many levels.
No, it is not illegal “in most jurisdictions.” It is illegal in a few states(aimed at the KKK), and illegal to do so during a crime–bounces up the penalty– in some more.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/01/23/antimask.ruling/
http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=335
Comment by Foxfier — September 1, 2008 @ 2:28 pm
Foxfier,
I’ll be as charitable as I can, but you seem to be deliberately obtuse and selective in choosing your responses.
As have books, TV and unsupervised conversations.
Books and TVs are attributable, and there is a clear paper or electronic trail of responsibility. However, your reference to so-called unsupervised conversations, while a cute dodge, ignores the reality that – unlike the Internet – the folks to whom you make your indiscreet remarks that slander or libel another my contribute to your downfall later.
We have enacted over centuries (implying LONG-TERM and INTERNATIONAL recognition of the problem) libel and slander laws that are most enforceable, unless you happen to have the misfortune of being a public figure. Even then, there is some limited protection for you if your malicious disregard for the truth can shown.
I am NOT advocating big brother. I advocate that we each weigh the taking of personal responsibility for our words against our desire or ability to risk consequences, as in those extreme instances like Rania, who you mentioned. Rania’s murder makes her a martyr, and writing a blog was her risk to take and her choice to make.
However, her murder is not justification for permitting anonymous postings. Patriots and saints have always carried the burden of great risk to their physical and spiritual health. That’s one good reason why THEY are heroes to the rest of us who are not. If you are not up to that, fine (I don’t especially see myself that way, but then I don’t make the kinds of statements that might result in terrible consequences for me unless you intend foul play…lol!), but please don’t whine that others strongly believe you are part of a more widespread and long-term problem that you minimize to advance your own personal agenda.
You are elivating your preferances to the level of moral requirements– and insulting rather than persuading.
Foxie, these are NOT personal preferences. Haven’t you EVER resigned yourself to an outcome of a dilemma dictated to you by considerations based on moral or theological grounds in direct conflict with what you wanted (perhaps like now)? I must accept the disadvantage intrinsic in forgoing anonymity (if that were my preference) in exchange for achieving a higher good. It sounds like you are unfamiliar with traveling that road. OK, fine. THAT choice may well be your personal preference vs. my own since we all must choose by what principles we try to live.
As for insult, tough. Some of us serve best at handholding, gently persuading, and others serve best as placekickers to the seat of the pants as far more effective eye-openers, the results of which may not be immediate but when they come to eventual fruition the one who has changed his POV clearly recalls the beginning of the journey. I know; it’s happened a couple times in my life. It seems you haven’t had the pleasure of that type of learning experience. Too bad; it makes a real man (or real woman) of you.
What’s more, you are not refering back to Church teachings to make your point, but instead insist that because you can see a way that something can be misused, it must not be used.
PLEASE. I don’t need to refer back to Church teaching to make this point, but you may need to in order to support your apparent callous disregard for the far greater negatives to irresponsible anonymity than the perceived benefit to few. Your anemic argumentation is causing me to thin Thomas is quite right to apply the word “cowardly” far more lavishly than I was originally inclined.
What IS this hang-up on church teaching? My position does not contradict it, (if you care to cite what exactly constitutes relevant Church teaching in this matter) but in this case it is not the first source you can find to apply here. You know, if you care to dig you can probably find what you need to argue for linking people’s identities to what they say by reading our libel and slander laws (originally written to apply to what now might be called offline activity) which have been effectively neutered by rampant anonymity on the Internet.
Why should activity covered by the Commandment against lying or by Jesus warning those who would lead children away from Him be allowable on the Internet? I don’t need to cite Church teaching, however, as you must, because can cite the Commandments or Scripture. Moreover, so long as my position does not contradict the Commandments or Church teaching I am free to advocate ANY position I can justify otherwise – same as you. I merely seek to apply to the Internet what most countries have erected prior to it governing offline speech. What causes damage offline is only greater in impact online.
You are guilty of exactly what you accuse others of; if not, please feel free to show binding Church teachings to back up your desires.
Foxie, you are not clear as to the specifics of your antecedent. Guilty of what, exactly? My arguments are not based on having it my way so I can do what I want. I have no personal stake in this at all. I defy you to show one. As for Church teaching, I already covered it. Again, what is you hang-up about Church teaching – which you now elevate it to “binding”?
I AM NOT RQUIRED to produce Church teaching on every issue – no Catholic is. I already pointed out that not all Church teaching is of the same authority or rank. If you don’t get that then you’re most likely a liberal. If you were to libel or slander me, I would haul your butt into court and sue you for every dime the law would allow. If you holler uncle early enough in the process, I’d be generous in victory, but if not, I would use the full weight of the law to take you down. It would be your choice as to the degree of actual consequence.
No, it is not illegal “in most jurisdictions.” It is illegal in a few states(aimed at the KKK), and illegal to do so during a crime–bounces up the penalty– in some more.
Foxie, baby, you’re pretty weak at this and I’m getting bored with your efforts. Please, do yourself a favor, don’t be so foolish as to generalize your response based on a CNN article or a propaganda piece from the hard-left Southern Poverty Law Center. These articles are written with a specific slant, and are not intended to address the specifics of what I asserted outside the context of their own stories (as in CNN) or agendas (SPLC).
Admittedly, you probably found it difficult to find direct refutation (and you failed) but you only succeeded in making yourself look foolish citing these pieces. How well researched do you really expect either piece was intended to be for the purposes of addressing completely my point about masks?
Besides, you only need to find one such example of anti-mask laws to make the point, which was for illustrative purposes - not proof.
You simply want what you want – like a typical teen – and your “prowess” at advancing a worthy response has terminated my interest in this blog. I must say, I am most disappointed in this blog. I think I’ll go over to Thomas’ site and visit awhile. His reasons for his ban against anon sites didn’t entirely resonate with me at first (though that began to change before long), but at least he demonstrates the ability to recognize principle, apply it, and even take an unpopular position based on it while causing a lot of negative response. My kind of man!
I’m removing my notification subscription as I’ve lost interest in further “discourse” here. You and David show a marked inability to respond effectively to my central points on principle, and so this place is a waste of time. I thank Thomas for making the distinction about anon blogs. He has my full support. You can have your party all to yourselves.
Comment by Phil Steinacker — September 1, 2008 @ 4:36 pm
BTW, Foxie - one last remark. It wasn’t fun kicking your ass - it was too easy. No, I don’t think I’m better than you; but I do think you were cheated by the educational system responsible for instructing you in the ruediments of thinking. You left clues that highlighted the suspect quality of your argumentation and your sentence structure.
My real complaint here is that after dealing with you in a couple of posts I became intellectually lazy, and didn’t feel like checking my spelling and formatting before posting the last two times. It’s embarrassing, so I need to elevate my game elsewhere. You need to do the same, man.
Comment by Phil Steinacker — September 1, 2008 @ 4:46 pm
I’ll be as charitable as I can, but you seem to be deliberately obtuse and selective in choosing your responses.
Interesting. I was thinking the same thing.
BTW, Foxie - one last remark. It wasn’t fun kicking your ass - it was too easy.
I think you can find medications for that delusion of yours, somewhere.
Comment by Foxfier — September 1, 2008 @ 7:34 pm
OK Phil, that is quite enough. Foxfier has addressed and soundly refuted your arguments, such as they were. When one responds with vulgarity and ad hominem he reveals much about himself. I am happy to know that you will not be back. As a side note: your personal reputation as a clear thinker would have been better served had you chosen to remain anonymous.
Comment by David — September 1, 2008 @ 9:00 pm
Since he said he’s unsubscribing, I guess I can now say- folks citing actual teachings is grasping at straws, his emotions about the downside of a freedom are binding?
I know he didn’t address my argument that I am far easier to find by my pseudonym than by my given name– I know when I people searched “Amanda Hicks” when I was 13, I got over 200 unique matches, none of which were me; when I was in the Navy, I ran into a gal with the same name, who was only a month different in age, we both looked similar–I wear glasses, she wore contacts– AND our specialization was only one letter different.
Ah well. Thank you greatly, David, for the complement!
Comment by Foxfier — September 1, 2008 @ 9:31 pm