Hyperbole is nothing new to the blogosphere, but  Real Lawyers Have Blogs raises the problem of bloggers and commenters use of the blogosphere as a weapon against others, while hiding under the veil of anonymity.

Joseph Hosteny, an attorney at Niro Scavone whose scathing piece “The Cowardice of Anonymous Bloggers” appeared in Intellectual Property Today already addressed the question when it published in late February (back when Frenkel’s identity was still a mystery). By calling anonymity a “repugnant disguise” and essentially comparing Troll Tracker’s actions to those of an amoral paparazzi photographer, Hosteny makes clear his position on the issue:

Anonymous postings are poisoning the online well, making any real debate over our patent system in the Internet arena difficult to nearly impossible. We litigators have been told, over and over, that we are not civil enough to each other. Unlike some politicians, many of us have heard — and heeded — the message. But these anonymous bloggers, and those who post anonymous comments to these blogs, can say whatever they want. As [Chicago Tribune public editor Timothy] McNulty said in his article, “Anonymity emboldens the cowardly and the liars.” But recently, the situation has become worse. We are now seeing death threats.

Very strong words indeed.  In some instances, things appear to have gotten out of control, generating opinions like this as well as  the silliness of Kentucky’s Tim Couch.  Death threats reflect sick minds.  There are always a few people with sick minds floating around, despite natural selection.  I don’t know that anyone will ever find a way to make these people disappear.

I’ve made no bones about the fact that I am, generally, not  a fan of  anonymous  blogging or commenting.  My reasoning is two-fold.  First, anonymity emboldens people to write things that they would never say to a person’s face, giving rise to the problem that Hosteny opines about as well as a general lack of civil discourse.  Second, it’s difficult to understand and appreciate a lot of what’s written without context, provided by having some knowledge of who’s saying what. 

I’ve been challenged as attacking the messenger instead of the message, but I respond that the meaning or significance of the message (i.e., I think the death penalty is the best thing since sliced bread) is relative to the messenger.  Whether a statement comes from a law student, a non-lawyer, a prosecutor, a judge, a lawprof, matters in interpreting or appreciating the statement.  The blogosphere is an imperfect form of communication, and engaging in a meaningful discussion sometimes demands more information than a particular poster provides.

That said, let’s not go off the deep end either.  The vast majority of anonymous comments and blogs do not reflect malevolence.  Yes, it may “embolden cowards and liars.”  It may also just protect ordinary people who prefer not to have their name all over the internet to be searched later and have their posts thrown in their face. 

There have been trolls since someone figured out that people can post stuff on the internet.  They annoy, they disrupt, they attack.  But there are far, far more people who want to contribute in a positive fashion.  Sure, we may not always like what they have to say, but mere disagreement is part of the game when you express opinions.  I try to deal with it, and sometimes I do so poorly.  But I try my best.  Hopefully it is good enough.

If my memory serves, there was a time on the internet when the right-thinking people would spot a troll, a drive-by idiot, a liar or coward, and shut him down.  People stood up for honesty and integrity online, and we promised to police ourselves and thus keep the friendly finger of the government off the delete button.

I don’t see this happening much anymore.  People see things they know to be wrong, and just skip to the next post or comment.  They don’t want to get involved, invoking the memory of Phil Ochs.  If we do a better job of self-policing, clean up the attacks on our own, perhaps we can eliminate much of the problem.  I doubt we will ever stop people from being dangerous, as some will always find new and offensive ways of behaving.  But we can deal with a lot of it, and make this experience better and more useful for the rest of us.

One last thought on the subject: Volume of words doesn’t win arguments.  Nor does getting the final word.  If that were so, I would win every point, mostly because I can control whatever happens here.  Disagreements are not life or death.  There’s no need to stay up late at night responding to everything for fear that you might “lose”.  This is a discussion, and the merit of your point will prevail if it is worthier than the other persons, not because you’ve written the same thing ten times or because you can’t distinguish between reason and emotion. 

But most importantly, it’s just a discussion.  You can stop any time you want.  I often let comments that I think are just silly float by because it’s not a discussion I want to continue.  Did I lose?  Not as far as I’m concerned.  And I guarantee you that it won’t keep me up at night.