When Dan Hull announced that What About Clients? would become the blawgosphere’s first No-Wuss zone, refusing to allow anonymous comments, I felt the heat.  His reasons were clear and accurate, and I certainly agreed with everything he said.  He made it even more clear in  a podcast with the Bard of the Brit blawgoshere,  CharonQC (his 150th!).

Then Mark Bennett, whose Defending People is the blawgosphere’s best in criminal law, locked arms with Hull, announcing that he too would refuse anonymous comments.  The heat was turned up.

And what of Simple Justice? 

I’ve had much to say about comments in the past, having a love/hate relationship with the concept and execution.  My voice has been raised against anonymity on numerous occasions.  Given the respect I have for both Hull and Bennett, coupled with my general aversion to anonymity as an excuse to mouth off like a jackass, the prospect of adopting the No-Wuss Zone policy had great appeal.  Yet I decided not to join.  Here’s why.

Comments fall into a number of different categories.  Some are the presentment of ideas that stand or fall on their own, and the speaker’s identity neither adds nor detracts from the value of the idea.  These constitute a relatively small segment of the comments, as few true concepts are presented that are not dependent on a value judgment (or normative, as the lawprofs love to say)  which is meaningless without knowing who is doing the talking.  Is the commenter a lawyer?  What type of law does she practice?  How much experience does she have?  What axes does the commenter have to grind?  The list goes on. 

Some argue that these things shouldn’t matter, and they are correct when the comment is limited to a stand-alone idea, but absolutely wrong then the comment is value laden.  The value of a commenter’s opinion can only be judged in context.  A comment along the lines of “Justice Scalia is an idiot” means nothing in itself.  No one, especially me, gives a hoot what some unknown commenter thinks about Scalia.  It’s a totally worthless comment and a waste of my bandwidth.  You have no right to waste my bandwidth.

Of course, commenters who might appear anonymous to others might be well known to me.  I have access, as the blog owner, to information that you, as the reader, do not.  Sometimes, I have someone posting a comment under an anonymous name but, knowing the true identity, I recognize to be significant.  While I won’t out the commenter, I will allow the comment and even engage the person. 

In contrast, there are commenters, and a lot of them, who are anonymous to me as well as you, but who inexplicably think that their opinions are monumentally important.  They believe that they are endowed with the inalienable right to spew their beliefs, or challenge mine, in the comments.  This is the Publius Syndrome, where they liken themselves to Madison’s pseudonymous writings.  As my friends Hull and Bennett have both pointed out, they ain’t Publius.

Forget about Madison’s need to anonymity, and their lack thereof.  These self-proclaimed pundits have an overly developed sense of self-importance, of entitlement.  Without benefit of context, or the guts to show themselves, they nonetheless demand, and often in a highly aggressive manner, attention.  These are the primary targets of the no-wuss problem.  Too gutless to stand behind their assertions, yet bold enough to spew over and over, and in the boldest of language.

Odder still, these would-be Publius’ harbor the bizarre expectation that because they throw down the gauntlet, I must pick it up.  They demand debate.  They scream for my attention.  When they don’t get it, they spew about my worthlessness for failing to do as they want. 

Here’s the deal, Pub.  You’re spewing isn’t all that fascinating to me, though I realize that you think you’re brilliant.  Sometimes I will make a joke about it, just to have a little fun.  This enrages you because I’ve not taken you seriously.  You are very serious to yourself.  Sorry, but you’re just not serious to me.  More often than not, you’ve said things that have been said a thousand times before, and just because you are self-obsessed doesn’t mean that I am required to explain why you’re a blithering idiot like the 999 people who came before you.

Other times, I will point out that Publius’ comment is valueless because of its anonymity, whereas it might be of some worth had Publius been tough enough to put his name to his spew.  In response, Pub will inform me that he’s hardly anonymous, but a well known quantity elsewhere.  This happens a lot when SJ gets link love from a political blog, and sends its readers over.  The whole anonymity thing is way bigger amongst the political crowd, where substance is often irrelevant to vapid anger. 

But here, Pub, you are anonymous.  That includes people who use their first name, or even first name and initial.  If your identity isn’t clear on the surface, then anonymous you are.  Obviously, it includes people who use cute names, pompous names, even initials. 

I have no plans to research who you are and painstakingly read your past comments elsewhere so that I can be overwhelmed with your long history of spewing.  When you show up here, you start anew.  I have no plans to spend my time worrying about who you are, and if you can’t manage to stand behind your spewing, I certainly won’t enable you.  If I don’t already know who you are, I have no interest in figuring it out.  That’s your responsibility.

There is another issue deriving from anonymity that falls into a more troubling category, that of the whistleblower.  Some commenters will post some very nasty allegations or information about the subject of a post.  These may very well be true, or they may just reflect the commenters anger toward a subject and an opportunity to vent.  If you want to malign someone here, that’s fine.  But then, you really must identify yourself if you want to be taken seriously or want to assure that your comment isn’t deleted.  Some are too harmful or malicious to be allowed to stand, even though I may have no liability for the content, when posed anonymously.  I understand why you want to be anonymous, but that’s the price for attacking someone.  If you want credibility, then you must pay the price.

Despite the pressure felt from Hull and Bennett, I’ve decided not to adopt the No-Wuss policy.  To the extent that anonymous comments offer some substance despite the lack of context, I accept them for what they are worth.  Most are discounted to the extent the ideas don’t stand on their own.  What does anyone care if you prefer vanilla to chocolate?  It tends to prove one thing, that the commenter is a jerk of no consequence.  And it isn’t going to make anyone switch from chocolate to vanilla anyway.

But when the anon commenter posts something that is either totally foolish, malevolent or ignorant, I will delete it without a second thought.  I hate to have to break this to you, but just because you think you’re a genius doesn’t mean anyone
else agrees.

There are many commenters here who have used pseudonyms for a long time, despite lacking any particular reason for doing so.  That’s fine with me.  Your comments might mean a whole lot more if I knew who you were, had some background about you to put your thoughts into context, but that’s your choice.

As for the car-keyers of the internet, as Bennett calls them, or the Ned Beatty wannabes per Hull, I feel no compulsion to engage anyone who I view as a jerk, twinkie or worthless.  And when I delete your brilliant comment and ban you from Simple Justice, your subsequent email informing me that I am whimpering, gutless pussy for not squaring off with you man to man pains me deeply.  But I get over it.

And so, Simple Justice will allow the anonymous commenter, the wuss, those suffering from the Publius Syndrome.  But don’t expect to be taken seriously if you think you can toss handgrenades while hiding under a rock.  If you want to be given credit, then grow a set and stand behind your opinions.