Dan Hull at the entertaining and informative What About Clients? (currently headed "What About Paris?" for reasons unclear to me) has re-run a post I missed the first time around — a stirring call to action against blog anonymity, at least among people who comment on blogs. I don't agree with all of it, nor (obviously) with the ultimate conclusion, but it's well worth a read, and is a very strong exposition of the anti-anonymity point of view, made more interesting by Dan's vision of how openness can improve legal blogging.
My position hasn't changed, as I said when Mark Bennett talked about this issue and instituted a no-anonymous-comments policy on his blog. (And by the way, I see that Dan commented on that thread back then.) I'm still at peace with my reasons for blogging semi-anonymously. You'd have to ask Patrick yourself, but I suspect he agrees. Our experiences since I wrote about this have only confirmed my position — notably based on our experience with a convicted rapist and registered sex offender (not to mention subject of outstanding harassment warrants) who engaged in nutty stalking behavior against a group of law bloggers that included us after that group criticized his content scraping. That dude is within driving distance of me, and I'd prefer not to deal with the paperwork and front-porch power-washing involved if I have to put a couple of bullets through him because he shows up at my door.
But I enjoy dialogue on the subject, and recommend Dan's post to you. Also, let's be realistic: I've been outed before by talented people, and will be again.
Last 5 posts by Ken White
- I Stand, Despite - August 30th, 2016
- How The University of Chicago Could Have Done A Better Job Defending Free Speech - August 29th, 2016
- Gawker, Money, Speech, And Justice - August 18th, 2016
- Lawsplainer: No, Donald Trump's "Second Amendment" Comment Isn't Criminal - August 9th, 2016
- Why Openness About Mental Illness is Worth The Effort And Discomfort - August 9th, 2016