Anonymous blogging isn't evil: It often deserves defense

Anonymous blogging is part of a tradition of protective self-expression whose origins predate electronic communication, as an anonymous comment at Enid, Ok., pastor Wade Burleson's blog eloquently explains:

All of this talk about anonymity has got me thinking. The term “coward” is sure getting thrown around a lot, and that is unfortunate. I wonder if anyone here has ever read or heard about the Marprelate tracts? They were written by (anonymous) Puritans in 1588-89 criticizing the abuses of Anglican bishops and clergy. They knew the consequences if they were discovered, but they could not remain silent. In fact, two men (both ministers) died (1 executed, 1 died in prison) because they were linked to the printing of the tracts. The printer, Waldegrave, had his press confiscated and was financially ruined. It is debatable whether or not the authors were ever really discovered. When the Anglican Star Chamber issued an edict in 1586 declaring that the Anglican church had the power to license and/or forbid all printing in the country, these men knew that they must speak out, but they didn’t necessarily want to die for it. After all, when a “trouble-maker” is discovered and dealt with (i.e. ruined by those in power that he critiques), then the criticism is silenced and people remain in the dark about the issues.

Read the rest here.

Anonymous blogging does permit the less powerful to constructively express themselves about the powerful. It does honorably trace its heritage to the anonymous pamphleteers, like those who wrote during the American revolutionary era.

Through anonymity authors may escape intimidation and other retaliation that would silence them and as was the case in 2007 with a New Jersey blogger, "daTruthSquad", legal action is sometimes required to preserve their anonymity and thus their continued self-expression.

Demeaning anonymous self-expression as "cowardice" is in such cases merely additional pressure on the blogger to fall silent.

As gwfrink3 wrote at the time:

Democratic government cannot be well-conducted in the dark, and this anonymous author is casting good light.

Yet anonymity is sometimes required if one is to both make responsible contributions to public discourse, and also put bread on the family table.

Do we not protect the discourse itself by protecting this one blogger?

Frink recently argued the public service case for FBC Jax Watchdog .

Aware that like all examples (ourselves included) he is imperfect, we have defended him as well. Anonymity and all, the less powerful critic's risk is real. Care is required.

We back up today on all of this not a single step.