Does being anonymous make you free from being accountable? Or does anonymity create the possibility of bringing accountability to powerful people?
This is a particularly appropriate discussion for a feminist blog. Privacy is a double-edged sword, and this community is filled with people who understand that. So suffer my introductory diary and let me here from you.
Privacy provides that every man’s home is his castle. When every man’s home was his castle, every man’s wife and child were his chattel. Privacy protected the rapist, and most of all the abuser of children. The privacy of the priesthood assured the vulnerablity of the children in MA. Because of the sanctity of the family, the first child abuse conviction used cruelty to animal laws.
and in the 94 review of NY child abuse laws:
Privacy is also critical to our own autonomy. Nothing more than Griswold v CN proved this. Notice that Planned Parenthood was charged in this case not only with providing contraceptives but also providing information about contraceptives. These were both offenses against the law.
Then there is the modern need for anonymity, for the non-tenured:
“”The secondary reason is that it’s important to me that my personal and political opinions remain distinct from my classroom persona,” she added. “It’s extremely important to me that my students not feel that I approach them with an `agenda.'” said Botch PhD about being targeted by an angry student with a history of intelligence employment.
The second posting on this web page is on Bitch, PhD but the first and third apply as well:
http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/tort_law/
“In other words, there is an interaction between culture, law, and science in the attribution of responsibility. We as a society are free to develop our own account of responsibility,”
When someone is anonymous we first discount them, according to common sense and economic models. So in the blog world they have to work harded to be respected. Posting your resume might make you seem smarter, but isn’t appeal to authority a cheap rhetorical device?
We discount opinions when we don’t have associated identity information. In the world’o’blogs, when is that not enough? When would it and is it OK to ‘out’ the identity of someone who is speaking without identity?
Thanks for your thoughts.