The ambiguity of anonymity

On March 15 the Wisconsin State Journal published an article about the hunt for an anonymous blogger who posts -- amongst other information-- criticisms of the city government of Whitewater, Wisconsin under the pseudonym John Adams.

Adams' posts and comments appear on what is likely a self-designed website. The article is an excellent example of the question of anonymity and the First Amendment freedoms of free speech and freedom of the press, and as the article pointed out the situation also has the potential of considering violations of civil rights.

The Supreme Court has set precedent that anonymous speech deserves First Amendment protection. (Talley v California, McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission, American Knights of the Ku Klux Klan v. City of Goshen). Political speech has often been given heavier weight when it comes to protection, so in the case referred to in the article, the anonymous speech of Admas is clearly the type of speech which is fundamental to the protections granted by the First Amendment.

Especially in the context of the proposed Federal Shield Law to protect journalists, many commentaries and minds have considered the question of what a journalist is and if "bloggers" or "citizen journalists" should be granted the same protections as traditional journalists.

You may have noticed that I have chosen to retain a minor level of anonymity using the pseudonym of Skippyn8. My decision was not based on feeling the need to protect my reputation or life from retaliation from my comments but more so to protect my identity from theft. I do not claim to be a journalist on this blog --this should be evident in the fact that I am currently using a pseudonym and the pronoun "I"-- but I do try to incorporate journalistic standards, such as objectivity, to promote public discussion and dissemination of information.

The jury may still be out on whether or not bloggers should be considered journalists. Many state shield laws use language that does include bloggers, and many critics argue the language of the federal shield law is too broad in defining journalists. The question of giving journalist privileges and protections to anonymous bloggers is absurd. You'll notice as an example the Wisconsin Journal Article was written by Dee J. Hall and goes even further to give you a phone number and email address. This is accountability. This is responsibility. This is journalism.

Being anonymous and being a journalist do not mix.

The article is also a great example of how the internet and changing media may bring cause for a reformation of the First Amendment. For example could this anonymous John Adams be considered a public figure because he is posting? Would a person on Facebook or Myspace fall under the public figure context in a libel and defamation case?

The internet is changing not only definitions of the Press but of many other First Amendment topics and issues.

Perhaps the real identity of Skippyn8 will soon be revealed... Though I am certain you all know who I am.