As for a promise of confidentiality to anonymous posters, any web forum which does that these days would be exposing itself to serious risks: even if we can never identify the anonymous ones, we can always identify those responsible for the forum and go after them. There is no “its the internet” defence, although removing oneself and one’s site to, say, Chad or the Sudan might give one certain legal protections. Short of that, allowing anonymous commenting really puts quite a high responsibility on the forum host to make sure they do not stay up for long if they carry any risk of being defamatory (or otherwise unlawful).

As for truth being a defence, even when it is, the onus is on the speaker to prove it. Not always an easy task.

I post under a pseudonym for two reasons:

a) I write about my work a lot and want to protect the privacy of my students and collegeaues. It’s my policy NOT to write things that I wouldn’t be comfortable saying to their faces. The same goes for commenting on others’ blogs. If I was having the conversation with them in person, is it something I’d say? If not, it gets deleted.

b) you’d be surprised how often students google their teachers. They look up your address, personal details and so on. As it is, I’ve had several requests to become ‘facebook friends’ (namely from year 11 boys), all of which I’ve denied as quite frankly, the less the kids know about me, the better.

I’d also note “real-world” impacts of harrassment in SecondLife, not just blogs. (I’m not a 2ndLifer, I just read NewScientist).

Bruce: Truth is not a defence, I think, in Qld. In some Oz jurisdictions, the only issue is whether the subject of the comment was “harmed” - regardless of whether the “harmful” statement was true and the “harm” deserved - e.g. restaurant business falls off because someone points out they had flies in their soup. Doubtless LE can correct me if I’m wrong.

The wingnuts always find one who’s willing to sell out.

It still surprises me that some prominent polemicists engage in stunts that involve abuse and threats. I thought that the e-thuggery that Tim Blair has massaged in Jeremy Sear’s direction was bad*, but this stunt of Malkin’s sounds worse, at least the way you make it sound to me.

Perhaps I should write an “Internet Squadristi” post on the matter. Maybe she’d sue
* Legal Eagle - I hereby personally take full legal responsibility for this statement.

I’ve thought about writing under a pen name, but to be frank I’ve never bothered. Like you I’d write in the same fashion as if I had revealed my name, which seems to me to be common amongst bloggers.

Aside from embarrassment for people you know or have known or worked with, there is the added issue of cyber-safety. Identity theft, financial fraud, cyberstalking/stalking proper and so on are always concerns (although I thought the Fed Govt.’s recent campaign was pretty cynical).

It’s a common rule of cyber-safety not to reveal your personal details (which I’ve long since broken). I don’t have a problem with people who do use a pen name though, just as long as the write in a fair minded manner as if they were writing under their own name.

Iain, as we have discussed in the past, my own anonymity arises because (a) I don’t want to embarrass any former workplaces at which I have worked and (b) I don’t have an ongoing position at my present workplace, so I’m a bit nervous. And of course, as a lawyer I’m neurotic about the risks inherent in everything I do. Legal training is a great thing for making one a pessimist, or at least very cautious.

I treat everything I say as if I were writing it under my own name, and I do not attack people. But I’ve noticed others use anonymity as a shield to be cruel or vicious. It brings anonymous bloggers as a species into disrepute. Which is a pity, because some of us are reputable and decent, just a little shy.

Fairlane, I remember reading about that furore. All extremely unpleasant. Initially, I enjoyed the cut and thrust of the political blogs, whatever side of politics they were from, but I haven’t commented on blogs which feature those kinds of aggressive debates for a long time myself. I don’t mind as long as people treat me with the respect I treat them, but if people are going to abuse me or get personal, I’m not interested.

The anonymity thingie is the reason I refuse to debate people on-line. They say ridiculous things, and then hide.

But, as you so rightly point out, you are only anonymous as long as you are allowed to be.

Here in the states, Michelle Malkin (A rightwing nutbag if there ever was one) posted the names and addresses of some of her “political enemies” on her blog. On top of being harassed they also received death threats.

Malkin got off with nary a consequence, and it made many people quite nervous to say the least.

That is why I never comment on Wingnut blogs.

It’s even easier to be vicious if you are anonymous, because if you want to make up a sufficiently obscure pseudonym, even your own mother might not realise you made the comment, so you don’t have to take responsibility for it. Although I write under a pseudonym on this very blog, I always write as though I was writing under my own name..

Sadly too many anonymous bloggers use a pseudonym to be complete idiots.