A discussion has broken out at the new criminal law blawg, Bad Court Thingy (an explanation of the name for those of you who are not as attuned to pop culture as I am can be found here), who complains about my comment that BCTs anonymity is “inexplicable”. This generated a minor debate about the subject of anonymous blawging.
I am not a fan of anonymous blawgers. It’s often impossible to appreciate the significance of the message without having some idea of the perspective of the writer. As I wrote in a comment, whether the writer has been a lawyer for 2 weeks, 2 years or 2 decades makes a difference. Similarly, is the writer a public defender, a private criminal defense lawyer, a prosecutor or a non-lawyer provides context for the message. Expectations and understanding of meaning differs markedly based on the writers background. It matters.
Aside from the writers background, the choice of not putting one’s name to one’s opinions also presents an issue. Are you ashamed of what you think? While the name itself is unimportant, it’s the act of attribution that matters. Like some small person driving dangerously, anonymity emboldens people to express opinions that they lack the guts to stand behind.
It appears that I’m not the only who thinks anonymity affects credibility. At lawprof Nancy Rappaport’s blog, she concludes that only cowards post anonymously. Granted, she was talking about comments rather than blawgers, but the logic remains the same. The comment to Nancy’s post by Dean Jim Chen makes the point that, like evidence, the lack of source impacts on weight and sufficiency.
I concur, and believe that anonymous posting impairs credibility, and in some instances, brands them a coward. Do they fear reprisal from the courts? Do they think clients won’t like them if they know what they think? Do they just want to show machismo that they would never display if anyone knew who they were? By exposing their identities, it tells me that they believe what they write and are ready to take the heat for it. I respect that.
Grits for Breakfast, a/k/a Scott Henson, takes issue. Scott argues that I seek to “judge the messenger in lieu of judging the message.” I think Scott misses the mark by a wide margin. In fairness, Scott isn’t a lawyer (and makes no bones about it), despite the fact that Grits is one of the best and most respected blawgs around. While this proves that the message surpasses the messenger, it does not change the fact that understanding the message often requires us to have some clue about the messenger. The messenger provides the context of the message, and these intertwined concepts preclude such a simple (though well-phrased) analysis.
Nor do I see it as mere idle curiosity, as Jamie Spencer does, an interesting but inconsequential detail. While there may be times when an observation is sufficiently meaningful that it’s author becomes irrelevant, there are far more times when the observation is meaningless in the absence of the author’s background. An observation about how clients can be difficult by a new lawyer is often quaint, but by an experienced lawyer the same observation can be just plain dumb. If you haven’t figured out the basics in 20 years, then there’s something seriously wrong here.
On the other hand, there are blawgers like Gideon who, as a public defender as well as individual with strong opinions, has been compelled to blawg anonymously because of hard circumstances. His views are his, but if he revealed his identity, there would be a problem with his views being attributed to his employer. Gideon is forced into the shadows for this reason, but has established himself as one of the premier blawgers because of his longevity and the quality of his efforts. The same is true of Skelly at Arbitrary & Capricious. I don’t know whether either could go public under other circumstances, but I can understand why they can’t given their current situation.
Of course, it doesn’t really matter what I think since I lack the power (or inclination) to unmask anyone who elects to blawg anonymously. I actually know who some of the anonymous folks are, and I’m not telling. But the strength of your opinions, the merit of your observations and the reliability of your information does bear a relationship to who you are, what your experiences are and whether you are willing to stand up and be counted. If you have no good reason to keep your identity under wraps, yet choose to blawg anonymously, then that tells me something about you as well, and it isn’t pretty.
I’m not saying I won’t read you, and I’m not saying that I won’t find merit in your message. But I am saying that you haven’t done as much as you could do to allow me to appreciate your message or convince me that you really mean what you say. Of course, even an anonymous blawger with a strong message is better than a disclosed blawger who never seems to have much of a message to begin with.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I think you definitely make some valid points, and as an anonymous blawger, it was something I considered before making my decision on how to blawg.
For me, it’s currently a result of my relatively regular attacks on a state agency that used to employ me. For now, I still have friends there who give me info knowing who I am, and I have other sources who give me info who know me only as an anonymous blawger. For now, it suits my needs to keep myself and my various sources protected, especially since many of them are still employed by said agency.
I’m actually looking forward to quitting anonymity eventually.
Remember when I said that you were taking this stuff far too seriously?
Maggie – that’s not your real name? 😮
When there’s a hard reason to stay under the radar, I think everyone understands.
No, Maggie is not my real name. And if I told you Maggie’s real name, she would have to kill me. But then, I won’t tell her your real name either,
Torquemada. Oh nuts. I can’t believe I just did that. Sorry. I’ll just make it go away. There. Now no one can see. Problem solved.Sometimes non-anonymous blogging isn’t a big advantage, especially if your real identity isn’t terribly important to your blog topics. I blog under my real name, but I mostly opine about subjects far outside my area of expertise (and often outside my area of competance). So, just like an anonymous blogger, whatever credibility I have comes from the body of all my posts and from the comments of other bloggers.
Wait, you mean yours isn’t Gideon??
Well, it’s more believable that your real name is Maggie than it is that mine is Gideon.
All good points, Scott. You know my real name, and I’d guess that most of the crimdef bloggers (plus people who use the e-mail address on my Blogger profile ) do too. Though I’ve used my patron saint’s name and photo as my avatar since A&C went online in 2004, I’ve always hidden in plain sight. Casual visitors and spammers know my nom de blog. Regular readers know my name, my workplaces and hometowns, even my bar numbers – you could check me out! Cheers.
Hey, I wasn’t giving out any info to anybody unless I’ve so directed. I’m no rat!
There are some I know, and I similarly know that over time they let go of a little of the anonymity because it became too hard to post stuff while keeping it tight to the vest. And as I said to Grits in the comments at BCT, ultimately you get to know the blawger by the biographical stuff that finds its way into the posts no matter what, and then his credibility (just like Scott’s) comes from substance regardless of everything else.
I enjoy reading posts from all different areas, from the kiddies (like Shawn and the poor deceased Malum), the lawprofs, the hired guns (Bennett), the pds (you and Gid). Everybody has something to add, and I learn the most from people who come at things from a different perspective. It’s a good thing (apologies to ex-con Martha).
I disagree, especially in your case. While you may not be a lawyer, you don’t conceal the fact and yet I frequently forget that you aren’t a lawyer because you know your stuff too darn well.
Must proof-read html before commenting, must proof-read html before commenting…
No sweat. I fixed it up all pretty.
When I use only my first name I am a secret blogger.
You had me completely fooled.
Scott, I certainly understand your take on anonymous bloggers, and I even agree to a certain extent. I thought I did a decent job laying out some info about me on my site, so at least there’s bit of a picture of where I’m coming from.
Really, it comes down to this for me. Like some others who post anonymously, I have people I have to answer to at work, who might not like their name attached to my semi-coherent ramblings. That probably is a cop out, but I will say that you have got me thinking about posting under my real name. Maybe in the future.
So maybe you do have a good reason to go anon. Who knew? This post wasn’t directed totally at you. You were just the opportunity to discuss the issue, and the issue extends beyond blawgers to anonymous comments as well. Anyway, to the extent you feel it applies (or care), I’m glad to have been able to put the discussion on the table.
SHG:
I’ll throw in my two cents for a very specific reason. Many, many public defender agencies & prosecutor offices technically require that all — ALL — public writings (incl. presumably blogs) have to be approved by some faceless bureaucrat and/or ban such private writings outright, at least if they are on the subject of the law. While I think most lawyers would feel this is a gross First Amendment violation, I think few want to “fight the man” on it.
I’ll go further, if I had to do it all over again I’d be anonymous.
Karl,
I’m kinda surprised to hear you say this. The same people who will fight the good fight for someone else won’t stand up for their own rights? The same people who pay you to fight for someone else won’t allow you to exercise your own rights?
There’s something very wrong with this picture. And this is okay with you?
SHG:
Rather than challenging the “gag rules” that govern those who practice with PD & prosecutors’ offices, I’m trying to explain why some people blog anonymously. I feel obligated, however, to limit my conversation about those rules as I too am bound by them unless, and until, they are changed or ruled impermissible.
Although I think you raise valid points about why anonymous blogging isn’t best, I would like to blog anonymously so I called talk more freely, esp. about issues that arise in my life & practice, incl. issues I care passionately about other than the “narrow cast” of my blog. I would love, for example, to write about juvie lwop, drug court (its limitations & problems), mental health courts (ditto), and reforms necessary to help perfect our criminal justice system (videotaping confessions, ID reforms, etc). The reality is, however, anything I write under my own name will be used against me later on. I should note I tried rebranding my blogging but the costs outweighed the benefits.
Another reason to blog anonymously, prosecutors and other local lawyers read my blog. At this point, however, if I were to suddenly start blogging anonymously most would quickly figure out who I am (I am dyslexic & unless I am hypervigilant write like shit with noticeable typo patterns) and the whole reason to blog anonymously would be lost.
However, I think your posts leave out one key problem with lawyers who blog anonymously. I think what many anonymous bloggers don’t do (and even some nonanymous bloggers), however, is remember that the ethics rules still apply to their activities. While NY has taken a view of the RPCs & related rules that I don’t agree with it, the core of your state’s ethics rules are simple, a lawyer is always a lawyer — that rule applies in every jurisdiction.. I think you esp. go out of your way not to talk about client confidences, unfotunately. I can’t say that about all bloggers, esp. some of the anonymous ones
I should note, anonymous lawyers would do well to review the RPCs & their state ethics rules, as they might be surprised about our professional limitations on blogging
I have posted at length my why some time ago at http://www.capitaldefenseweekly.com/blog/?page_id=1833
As always, thanks for quickly becoming the de facto forum for criminal defense blawgers to congregate, esp. now that TalkLeft is almost wall to wall politics.
Karl,
You raise some very interesting points, and have given me a new idea. What would you think if I picked a day and we did “Anonymous Blawger Day,” where people who felt constrained in their subjects or opinions could post here anonymously? It’s not just you, but quite a few (including some blawgers who are already anonymous but feel that their blawgs have a personality that prevents them from saying something that might come back to haunt them) who feel unduly limited.
So what do people think of this idea?
I’m going to switch to anonymous blogging so I can advocate the overthrow of the Harris County Criminal Justice Center.
Oh, wait . . .
Which is why I completely avoid talking about my own cases, except in very vague general terms about cases more than 3-4 years old and even then I bet you couldn’t figure it out if I told you. Maybe I’m making it all up. It’s that vague. Sometimes I do, actually. “I once had a client” is a story-telling device for me.
I have wondered about ethics rules, too. I enjoyed your post. I’ll do some digging on my own, too. If I come up with something noteworthy, I’ll post about it.
Now, we should all get IRC and set up #criminaldefenseblawgosphere.
You’re really Chuck Rosenthal, aren’t you?
Unmasked! heheheh.
Figured I could make you guys laugh.