The internet does allow contributors to grant themselves anonymity. This can be used and misused in a variety of ways.
Another interesting case regarding anonymity and blogs appeared in the New York Times this morning.
Underneath Their Robes is described as “a dishy hybrid of People Magazine and The Harvard Law Review.†It’s content focused on reporting law related gossip and over the top commentary.
The blogger was known as ‘Article III Groupie’ and took on a ‘female diva persona’. However it was revealed in a New York Magazine piece, that the writer of the site was actually a male prosecutor, David B. Lat an employee of the Justice Department.
Mr Lat revealed his true persona to The New Yorker, because he “was putting a lot time into this and was unable to get any credit for it.†(sounds like a bit of a diva, regardless of his sex!)
The article in the New York Times raises the question of whether this blog could well compromise his ability as his lawyer. Judge Posner saw no problem with this duplicity, lawyer by day, blogger by night.
However he did raise the point, Is it possible to make unfavorable statements regarding judges and then appear before them in court?
The blurb that appears underneath the site on a Google search, describes Underneath the Robes as ‘wildly irreverent’ and an ‘anonymous legal weblog’. Anonymity was the key to the websites success – it gave the writer intrigue and license
Surely it will now be impossible for colleagues and judges to work with him in an uninhibited fashion when they know he is liable to blog about anything potentially scandalous. It will be a conflict of interest. I would suggest he consider giving up the blog gig, until he leaves the profession. At this stage – the blog can no longer be accessed
Speaking of anonymity, last night an anonymous poster added a derogatory comment concerning one of our own class bloggers. I was disappointed to see that this person was prepared to deride a blogger and not put their name to their statements. I purposefully have decided not to link to it.
I can see a purpose for anonymity in situations where you do place yourself at some personal risky by revealing crucial information to the public. However using anonymity to protect oneself from reprisal after making vitriolic remarks is a cowardly misuse of its protection. This is especially so on a website established for academic purposes.
I suggest these comments be removed.
Michelle Crowley @ November 16, 2005 - 7:16pm
aargh, James, I was just about to post on this! Alas, you beat me to it. I was thinking about the Underneath our Robes guy in relation to J.T. Leroy being fired for the fears over his identity, and how important the disclosure of identity is to a reader. Certainly, readership is based on trust, and if people cannot even trust that the writer's identity is true, it is hard to extend our trust any further. What I find interesting is the grey area that has been created by blogs. After all, what does a blog really owe to its reader?
As for the anonymous thing you mentioned, I totally agree with you. It seemed like it was someone from our group who signed out to write something disparaging. Not a good practice at all!
»