Should I have published comments from someone I suspect is hiding behind a pseudonym? That question forces me to revisit the vexed question of anonymity. But it also raises a far bigger and more disturbing issue – namely, the climate of fear that obviously deters many people from exercising their democratic right to say what they think, using their own names.
I have said before that I greatly value comments on this blog. The comments section provides a platform for people who have something useful to say and perhaps only limited means of expressing themselves publicly. But last month, in a rush of puritanical fervour provoked by the Posie Parker affair, I declared I would no longer publish pseudonymous comments – my rationale being that anonymity endangers rather than protects freedom of expression. When people are too timid to assert their right to free speech, its power is diminished and it becomes more vulnerable to attack. At least that’s my reasoning.
But obviously not everyone got that memo, because anonymous comments have continued to come in and a substantial unpublished backlog has accumulated. Now Jordan Heathcote, whoever he/she is, forces me to reconsider the whole issue.
The most obvious problem is that I have no practicable way of verifying that commenters such as Jordan Heathcote are who they purport to be. Most newspapers require writers of letters to the editor to provide an address and phone number so they can be authenticated if necessary – a precaution not available to me.
But there are other arguments – far more compelling ones – in favour of allowing pseudonyms, some of which were covered in feedback from readers responding to last month's post and explaining why they felt unable to comment under their own names.
Some of their comments follow. It’s hard to read them without experiencing the chilling sensation that New Zealand is no longer the free and open society many of us assumed it to be.
■ Someone using the pseudonym Lucia Maria said: “It is far easier for people to be brave when their income is protected. Those that are still working and have families to support and mortgages to pay will self-censor themselves out of the conversation if anonymity (even under a pseudonym) is removed as an outlet for their thoughts.”
■ “Anonymous” wrote: "I understand your view on names but I can’t provide mine. Unfortunately what you see in the media is endemic in corporations. The ability to hold alternative views on The Treaty, identity, climate change has been snubbed [perhaps he/she meant snuffed] out.
“I accept that you will consider me by my omission of a public response to be complicit in what is happening. But I need to protect my family’s wellbeing. Yes, an argument used by many over the years as they stood by and watched bad things happen. But like many I don’t have the luxury of putting it all at risk.
“We don’t need the jackboots of a physical oppressor, we have the modern equivalent. The Twitter mobs, the paid-by-government media and their self-selection of complicit 'reporters' and our politicians who are too scared like me to act. We have a society that enables the tyranny of the minority.”
■ Phil Blackwell, a frequent commenter who uses the nom-de-plume Tinman but is prepared to be identified, urged me to cut pseudonymous commenters some slack. He wrote: “The commenters here are largely intelligent, thoughtful and erudite (although often wrong) and I hope you give some leeway for those who need that anonymity.”
■ “Nicola” wrote that she and her husband supported the Free Speech Union, but her husband relied on the Wellington Beltway for his income, and economic reality demanded that they keep their views to themselves. If they wanted to join a public protest they would go somewhere they were unknown, such as Palmerston North. “It … feels like a copout but within the Beltway today, it is hellish for any NZer who isn’t at least as left as the Greens.”
(Well might Nicola and her husband support the FSU; their moral quandary shows how desperately it’s needed.)
■ Trevor Hughes, who posts comments as Trev1, is another who defends anonymity. He wrote that disallowing pseudonyms risks throwing the baby out with the bathwater. “As some posters have noted, without anonymity their free speech may put them at serious risk. Yet they may also have insights to share that are particularly illuminating.”
■ Tom Hunter mentioned a regular commenter on Kiwiblog who, using his own name, had criticised a government department. “Eventually this led someone to identify his partner, who worked in another government department, and threaten to out both of them as ‘far Right extremists’. He had no choice but to leave the forum, although it's suspected - judging from [his] writing and debating style - that he has returned with a [pseudo]nym.
Tom continued: “I get your point that people may have to put their careers on the line to stop this thing and that's what you're trying to force, but I don't think that's going to work when you've got people like those above who have to take care of their families and provide for them.”
There was further comment on Muriel Newman’s Breaking Views website, which also published my post.
■ Dee M wrote: “Many people are too scared to identify themselves for a variety of reasons, often connected to their employment. We have plenty of examples of people being hounded out of their jobs for expressing their unfashionable opinions openly. And look at Thomas Cranmer!” [Thomas Cranmer is the nom de plume of a senior lawyer who appears unwilling to admit authorship of his authoritative and influential articles, presumably for fear of professional repercussions.]
■ Chris Morris: “I agree with the general policy of standing by what you write, but there have been so many instances of people doxed and ‘punished’ that I am more than a little concerned at the practicalities of its application.”
■ Peter Ness: “I have to agree with Dee M and his comment re blogging anonymously. Many people stood up for free speech on the lawn of Parliament and were mandated out of their jobs, homes and livelihoods. If you’re Mike Hosking … you can say what you like, within reason, because it’s going to be a big call to fire him for what he says and watch your ratings sink like a stone. Very different if you’re a policeman or doctor, nurse etc. An anonymous voice, small and tiny is worth listening to (that’s courtesy of Horton hears a Who).”
■ Another anonymous commenter on Breaking Views said he stood to lose a 40-year career and his home if he spoke out. He went on: “Equity is where everyone has to have the same outcome no matter their circumstance. It seems you want everyone to speak out immediately no matter their circumstance. I didn’t think you pushed an equity barrow. Maybe you should focus more on equality of opportunity – giving everyone the chance to speak out in the way that is best for them. Do Aesop’s fables carry less weight because the original author is anonymous?”
The striking thing about all this is that if the commenters are to be believed, and I have no reason to doubt them, freedom of speech in New Zealand is far more precarious than most of us imagined. When people are afraid to speak their minds for fear of adverse consequences, we are effectively no better than Putin’s Russia or Xi Jinping’s China. You could be excused for wondering how long it will be before people start circulating New Zealand-style samizdats - the clandestine newsletters published by dissenters in the Soviet Union.
Things may not be so bad here that people risk arrest or imprisonment for speaking out, but the chilling effect is no less real. The threat of ostracism, career derailment or denunciation on social media can be almost as powerful as the fear of a knock on the door from the secret police in the middle of the night.
In fact in some ways it’s more insidious because it’s not declared or overt. Limitations on free speech are imposed not by statute or government edict, but by unwritten rules policed by vindictive zealots determined to make an example of anyone who challenges the dominant ideological consensus.
This is something new. Even during the prime ministership of Robert Muldoon, which is generally considered the high-water mark of authoritarian government in modern New Zealand history, people didn’t feel this intimidated. You have to go back to the Public Safety Conservation Act, which was used to criminalise pro-wharfie comment during the 1951 waterfront dispute, to find a more oppressively censorious political environment – and that legislation was invoked on that occasion in response to a singular and relatively short-lived event. This time it’s open-ended. There’s no fixed time frame beyond which we can assume free speech will be permitted to flourish again.
All this is a long-winded way of saying that I’ve reversed my decision to disallow anonymous comments on this blog. Comments such as those reproduced above have persuaded me that allowing people a voice is more important than taking the moral high ground on whether they identify themselves.
I still lament that many people hide behind pseudonyms for no better reason than they lack the courage to stand up for opinions they are legally entitled to hold. I also deplore the tendency for anonymity to result in commenters engaging in cheap shots and puerile slanging matches – a fate that has befallen other blogs (though not this one), and which wouldn’t happen if commenters had to be named. Accordingly, people who identify themselves are far more likely to get their comments published here. Opinions carry far more weight when there’s a name to them.
But what’s even more lamentable than people sheltering behind pseudonyms for reasons of timidity is that many commenters are genuinely fearful of repercussions if they identify themselves. Freedom of expression is not served by denying them a voice – and ultimately, freedom of expression must take precedence over secondary concerns.
■ Trevor Hughes, who posts comments as Trev1, is another who defends anonymity. He wrote that disallowing pseudonyms risks throwing the baby out with the bathwater. “As some posters have noted, without anonymity their free speech may put them at serious risk. Yet they may also have insights to share that are particularly illuminating.”
■ Tom Hunter mentioned a regular commenter on Kiwiblog who, using his own name, had criticised a government department. “Eventually this led someone to identify his partner, who worked in another government department, and threaten to out both of them as ‘far Right extremists’. He had no choice but to leave the forum, although it's suspected - judging from [his] writing and debating style - that he has returned with a [pseudo]nym.
Tom continued: “I get your point that people may have to put their careers on the line to stop this thing and that's what you're trying to force, but I don't think that's going to work when you've got people like those above who have to take care of their families and provide for them.”
There was further comment on Muriel Newman’s Breaking Views website, which also published my post.
■ Dee M wrote: “Many people are too scared to identify themselves for a variety of reasons, often connected to their employment. We have plenty of examples of people being hounded out of their jobs for expressing their unfashionable opinions openly. And look at Thomas Cranmer!” [Thomas Cranmer is the nom de plume of a senior lawyer who appears unwilling to admit authorship of his authoritative and influential articles, presumably for fear of professional repercussions.]
■ Chris Morris: “I agree with the general policy of standing by what you write, but there have been so many instances of people doxed and ‘punished’ that I am more than a little concerned at the practicalities of its application.”
■ Peter Ness: “I have to agree with Dee M and his comment re blogging anonymously. Many people stood up for free speech on the lawn of Parliament and were mandated out of their jobs, homes and livelihoods. If you’re Mike Hosking … you can say what you like, within reason, because it’s going to be a big call to fire him for what he says and watch your ratings sink like a stone. Very different if you’re a policeman or doctor, nurse etc. An anonymous voice, small and tiny is worth listening to (that’s courtesy of Horton hears a Who).”
■ Another anonymous commenter on Breaking Views said he stood to lose a 40-year career and his home if he spoke out. He went on: “Equity is where everyone has to have the same outcome no matter their circumstance. It seems you want everyone to speak out immediately no matter their circumstance. I didn’t think you pushed an equity barrow. Maybe you should focus more on equality of opportunity – giving everyone the chance to speak out in the way that is best for them. Do Aesop’s fables carry less weight because the original author is anonymous?”
The striking thing about all this is that if the commenters are to be believed, and I have no reason to doubt them, freedom of speech in New Zealand is far more precarious than most of us imagined. When people are afraid to speak their minds for fear of adverse consequences, we are effectively no better than Putin’s Russia or Xi Jinping’s China. You could be excused for wondering how long it will be before people start circulating New Zealand-style samizdats - the clandestine newsletters published by dissenters in the Soviet Union.
Things may not be so bad here that people risk arrest or imprisonment for speaking out, but the chilling effect is no less real. The threat of ostracism, career derailment or denunciation on social media can be almost as powerful as the fear of a knock on the door from the secret police in the middle of the night.
In fact in some ways it’s more insidious because it’s not declared or overt. Limitations on free speech are imposed not by statute or government edict, but by unwritten rules policed by vindictive zealots determined to make an example of anyone who challenges the dominant ideological consensus.
This is something new. Even during the prime ministership of Robert Muldoon, which is generally considered the high-water mark of authoritarian government in modern New Zealand history, people didn’t feel this intimidated. You have to go back to the Public Safety Conservation Act, which was used to criminalise pro-wharfie comment during the 1951 waterfront dispute, to find a more oppressively censorious political environment – and that legislation was invoked on that occasion in response to a singular and relatively short-lived event. This time it’s open-ended. There’s no fixed time frame beyond which we can assume free speech will be permitted to flourish again.
All this is a long-winded way of saying that I’ve reversed my decision to disallow anonymous comments on this blog. Comments such as those reproduced above have persuaded me that allowing people a voice is more important than taking the moral high ground on whether they identify themselves.
I still lament that many people hide behind pseudonyms for no better reason than they lack the courage to stand up for opinions they are legally entitled to hold. I also deplore the tendency for anonymity to result in commenters engaging in cheap shots and puerile slanging matches – a fate that has befallen other blogs (though not this one), and which wouldn’t happen if commenters had to be named. Accordingly, people who identify themselves are far more likely to get their comments published here. Opinions carry far more weight when there’s a name to them.
But what’s even more lamentable than people sheltering behind pseudonyms for reasons of timidity is that many commenters are genuinely fearful of repercussions if they identify themselves. Freedom of expression is not served by denying them a voice – and ultimately, freedom of expression must take precedence over secondary concerns.
