There have been numerous efforts, stories, suggestions and concerns posed over the past week alone about the preservation of reputation online.  Dan Solove wrote The Future of Reputation, a chilling book about it.  Teens who did the stupidest thing ever live with the consequences.  The CCR Symposium involved it.  A cyber-stalked lawyer is writing federal legislation to protect herself from it. Carolyn Elefant wrote about what to do about it.  And I received yet another request to delete a post that undermined a lawyer’s “carefully crafted online persona.”

To say that this is a matter of concern is an understatement.

As Dan Solove cautioned, we are not in control of our image on the internet.  Even if each of us is careful to a fault about what we post, what we reveal, the battles we pick, how we behave, we are not in control of what others post about us on the internet.  Over time, the chances are good that anyone with any connection to life online will find someone who disagrees with them, thinks ill of them, even posts misinformation about them.  There will be negative, unpleasant things to be found on the internet.

This should be distinguished from posting hard threats of harm, or malicious lies, which takes us into a different realm of concern.  As was contended in the CCR Symposium, the veil of anonymity disinhibits otherwise normal people from doing some very venal things online.  Of course, the likelihood that it will translate into real world action is small, as the veil is then lifted and the conduct subject to the same proscriptions are all other venal conduct. 

One pervasive question is where the line is drawn between acceptable and unacceptable comment.  This gets very difficult, since each of us has a line of our own and believes that our line is correct and others are absurdly wrong.  Our ideas of propriety differ, as does our sense of humor,  Some of us are tougher than others, and some are very sensitive.  Some are easily offended and others have thick skins.  Many have worked hard to craft a marketing image about themselves, and can’t stand anything that might impair their financial gain.

When Carolyn wrote about dealing with online negatives, I questioned her advice.  Not so much because it was per se wrong, or not methodologically viable, but because is assumed that negatives were unfair or wrong, and that there was a presumption that every lawyer should know how to shed their online personas of negative comments.  This struck me as equally problematic, since there are many lawyers who post things that are wrong, improper, questionable and sometimes even unethical, in their quest for self-promotion.  Should they be immune from challenge because they are lawyers obsessed with marketing themselves?  They think so.

If we put our ideas out there in cyberspace, regardless of reason, we need to accept the fact that not everyone will think as highly of our thoughts as we do.  We invite criticism, and some of it may be harsher than we would like.  We are not entitled to a pleasant internet.  We are not entitled to be like, respected and admired.  We take our chances.  Nobody forced us to jump in, and when we do, we need to be tough enough to take the heat.

While many promote the idea that the blawgosphere, for example, presents a grand opportunity to present a desirable persona to the world, they neglect to mention that there is a downside to exposure.  When the criticism comes, cyberdenizens get upset.  Some characterize this as attacks, which is one of the grave failings of Citron’s CCR claims.  There are true attacks, but this isn’t them.  This is the belief that people get to post what they want without threat of negative peer review.  The internet is not a free ride.

Given the extent of my thoughts that appear in the posts on Simple Justice and elsewhere, I believe that I can speak with some authority on this subject.  I’ve been criticized many times by people who disagree with what I’ve said, both here and elsewhere.  I’ve received threatening emails and comments.  I’ve been called names, sometimes by jerks and sometimes by law professors.  I’ve seen my work stolen by unwanted mercenaries and friends who didn’t think I would mind.  I’ve had my very own nutjob cyber-stalker.  And none of it has thrown me off my game.

When I decided to start posting my writings here, I understood that it was out there in a world over which I have no control.  I put it out there.  I’ve got no cause to complain.  If someone throws a punch at me that I believe to be unwarranted, I punch back. 

No one did any of this to me because of my race, sex, age, skin color, national origin or religion.  And since I provide virtually unfettered access to my background, they are all on display for anyone who cares to find.  I didn’t find it fun to be harassed or attacked, but I never lost sleep because of it.  No anonymous attacker ever showed up at my door with an ax.  Every morning, I sit back down at my computer and write whatever pops into my head, as if yesterday’s unpleasantness never happened.  In a very real sense, it never did. 

Many argue that my views trivialize “the very real harm” that others suffer.  Perhaps they do, as I have no doubt that some have had a knock on their door by some ax-wielding psychopath.  But we can’t craft out world around that most oddball fears coming to fruition, not to mention we already have legal mechanisms in place to deal with ax murderers.

Short of that, it’s all words and letters and ideas, floating in the mist.  So what?  If you want a guarantee that no one will ever disagree with you, dislike you, say mean things about you, this isn’t the place to be.  There is no guarantee.  And contrary to those who promote a Utopian view of a “safe haven” online, where one can enjoy all the positives and benefits without fear of negatives, I cannot agree.  The price of having a public place to air our ideas is disagreement. 

I have never been a fan of anonymous posting, though I understand why some prefer it and that good reasons exist to protect those who would suffer real life retaliation for it.  Bennett calls nasty anonymous commenter’s the car-k eyers of the internet.  They are easily ignored, if you chose to do so.  If you chose to take them to heart, then you empower them to hurt your feelings.  I posted a question on a website recently and received some idiotic and nasty replies.  I didn’t cower in the corner, feelings hurt and afraid of the attacks.  I clicked on the little “x” in the corner and they magically disappeared.  What happened after that is of absolutely no consequence to me.  Don’t tell me it isn’t that simple. It is exactly that simple.

Note that this does not extend to real life attacks and harms that begin online but manifest in reality.  Note that this does not apply to children, who act without thought of consequences.  Note that this does not apply to people who are engrafted into the cyberworld without their knowledge, consent or involvement. 

But for the rest of us, as competent adults who are fully capable of real
izing that we have made a decision to be part of the cyberworld, blawgosphere, whatever, for fun or profit, there will be no assurance that everyone who comes across us will love and admire us.  We can and will invite critics to take their best shot at us.  If this upsets you to the point that you demand criminalization, the end of anonymity, legislation and compensation, then you have no business being here. 

Frank Pasquale asked:

Is cyberspace a “wild west“? Should “anything go” online? Are statements and behavior sharply distinguishable? Are the former “only words” that change the world through the unforced force of persuasion, and the latter the kind of action we rightfully fear and regulate?

We could do far worse, if we let each interest group impose its will and delicate sensibilities on the rest of us, no matter how highly they think of their own value judgments.  When the desperados rode into town to make trouble, the townspeople formed a posse to go after them.  It wasn’t easy, and it had some risks.  But we survived.

Maybe the day will come when a guy with an ax appears at my door and changes my view of thing, but for now, I’ll keeping writing whatever I please and anyone else in the blawgosphere (or anywhere else in cyberspace) can write what they please, even if it is something nasty and false about me.  Just remember, I punch back.