Readers respond to article criticizing anonymous postings
Amen.
-Mark Baird Alameda CA
—
The author reveals to us that his name is Peter Scheer and he works for something called the California First Amendment Coalition. However we do not know who financed and established the organization or whether the author represents a client, or who that client may be. I suspect he does in fact represent a client organization that he is reluctant to reveal because if readers knew the identity of his client we may somehow disapprove. It is odd that an organization that seems to defend the first ammendment would write an op ed piece that would radically weaken it.
-rcastevet
—-
As part of the ‘attorney client privilege’ attorneys are allowed to represent clients anonymously and do not need to reveal who their clients may be. Society would be much better off if lawyers had to reveal the identies of their clients than if citizens had to reveal themselves in public forums in order to speak. Rather than restricting first ammendment rights on citizens, we should focus on limiting the attorney client privilege which is NOT protected by the constitution and which causes far more potential harm to society. Perhaps the attorney who wrote this peculiar op ed opinion could also write an opinion on his right as an attorney to represent anonymous clients, and perhaps we should ask ourselves why it is so crucial that lawyers dont have to tell us who is paying them?
-rcastevet
—
Rather than limiting my right to speak out anonymously as a citizen I would much rather limit the author’s right as an attorney to anonymously represent clients….
-rcastevet
—-
Perhaps Mr. Scheer actually represents a large corporation who is in danger of being busted for some kind of reprehensible or illegal criminal behavior and it is in that corporation’s best interests to limit the first amendment right to free speech which gives polluters, thieves, murderers, investment bankers, mortgage brokers and mafia godfathers no end of grief…..
-rcastevet
—-
There is a reason our founding fathers made the right to speak anonymously the very very very FIRST amendment. Get it Scheer? The FIRST amendment……Amendment NUMBER ONE for our free society. I greatly mistrust an attorney from something called the California First Amendment Coalition trying to convince me we have to LIMIT the rights his organization claims to ‘represent’. I guarantee the attorney right to anonymously represent gansters and criminals causes orders of magnitude more damage to society than our FIRST amendment, and that our FIRST amendment is under a constant barrage from criminals seeking to destroy us…..
-rcastevet
—-
Quite a rant there rcastevet…four entries. Yet, I have never heard of an attorney representing an anonymous client. In any court proceeding, all parties must be identified publicly, unless such identification results in a danger to them or others, in which case the identity is made known only to the judge and attorneys in the case. A reasonable precaution, given that some of these gangsters, etc., you mention might actually be acting against the organizations of which they are members and require this protection from those same organizations. As for whether Mr. Scheer’s organization has some ulterior motive, that was not the subject of the piece. Mr. Scheer identified himself and his organization and we are all free to research both to find out what they are really about. He was not in the least bit anonymous about it.
-rcastevet
—–
vtxbay is certainly right about how the legal profession works. And I agree in part w/ the author about maintaining civil discourse. These comments on SFGATE articles contain many examples of NON civil discourse, and uninformed people who just like to see their opinions in print (or on screen) and will say just about anything. I don’t want to stifle anyone, and you can remain anonymous if you want, but I would appreciate it if people would only comment on topics they know about and can write a coherent comment. In fact, I think a lot of readers don’t bother to contribute because they don’t want the negative feedback that often is flung at them.
-mkeenan
—-
Excuse me did you imply I don’t know what I’m talking about because five seconds on Google is all you illiterate blog morons need….[…Evidence. Attorney-Client Privilege. Attorney Privileged from Identifying Anonymous Clients Who Employed Him to Forward Sums in Payment of Past Taxes Believed Due, but Not under Investigation by Government Virginia Law Review, Vol. 47, No. 1 (Jan., 1961), pp. 126-132
-rcastevet
—–
I’m the author of the article on anonymous speech that you are discussing. racastevet’s comments are, I think, a good example of the kind of rants that are unleashed by excessive anonymity on the internet. If racastevet identifies him(her?)self, I’ll try to respond to his comments. But if he insists on hiding behind a pseudonym, I will ignore what he has to say, and would recommend that others reading these comments do the same.
–Peter Scheer, California First Amendment Coalition
—–
Anonymous blogging and comments are a double edged sword. It would be potential dangerous for my blog (http://ridenshoot.blogspot.com) to be tied to me or my home address. If I can’t blog anonymously my voice is stilled and I don’t wish to be silenced. Being a gun owner and shooting enthusiast is something many people have no problem being gun bigots about. Careers can be jeopardized. I’d be a target for thieves (and worse). I’ve already been the victim of vicious lies and allegations made to local authorities, resulting in visits from the police. Please feel free to drop by and comment, anonymously if you wish.
-Fodder
—-
Does the term “journalistic credibility” also apply to the San Francisco Chronicle [which published Scheer’s article as an Op-Ed] when it comes to blacklisting commenting readers, removing their comments, but using technology to trick them into believing they have not been blacklisted. It appears sfgate.com continues to display comments only to the blacklisted commenter, but not to others.
-jpc55416
—-
Peter Scheer’s article attempts to apply analog logic to a digital enviroment, and his argument doesn’t work. We’re not all at some seminar, in the same physical place where we can see each other speak at a podium. There is no compelling reason to verify anyone’s identity in cyberspace, and it’s virtually impossible to do it anyway. Nothing matters except what people say out here. Bloggers hiding their identities will not be taken seriously? It doesn’t make any sense. If I signed this post “Joseph Williams, Psychology Dept., University of Washington” would you take it seriously simply because the name “looks” real? You could call UW and verify the existence of Prof. Williams, but how would you know he posted this? Send someone over there to ask him? A handle—whether it’s real or invented—identifies the poster, and that’s about all they’re good for. Anonymity is irrelevant. We are all automically “responsible” for what we write on the Internet. It’s pretty simple.
-hemingway_cat