Something happened against someone that I know in this last week that I consider to be a highly reprehensible and harrassing action. . I'll be writing more specifically about that issue in the next week or so,  Have written about it here but meanwhile I'd like to talk about some concepts revolving around freedom of speech in various venues.

First, although the outrageous circumstance I will write about did not happen to me, some personal information about me as the writer here in support of my views regarding posting opinions about various subjects. I've had my blog, Somervell County Salon, for around 10 years. I have always posted as "Salon". No one has ever posted AS "Salon" but me. There are other posters on this site, and have been over time, some of which have posted also with anonymous names. It's interesting to me that quite regularly but not always, the men tend to post with their real names while the women do not. For example, "Pstern", "Pharper", "Darrell Best" are all men who have either posted top level posts or comments under their real names. (Mr Best has also posted here under an anonymous moniker he chose). For me, I post on this blog using "Salon" because I am female and because this is the internet. I strongly believe that there are some troll types that are encouraged by knowing that a poster is female to harrass that poster simply based on mysogyny and sexism. And don't forget doxxing. (not to include those whose sexism leads them to wrongly believe that a woman can't write this, must be a man; can't fix stupid)  I also tend to post on other sites using an anonymous name, and the social media sites permit it. I have written letters to the editor of paper newspapers over the years, and always use my real name in those instances. Why the difference? Because in the circle of the newspaper, and of real -life relationships in this small community, people DO know who I am, and quite often know that I am the owner of this blog and post under *salon*. I have quite frequently over the years gone to government meetings to attend or record them, so the idea of being known personally under my real name is a different issue than seeking to, in the broad internet world, use a screen name. 

So, is there an issue in the world at large about using an anonymous or pseudo anonymous name to post? No. In fact, at the time of the Revolution, using a pen name in writings, particularly political writings, was common. One well known example is James Madison and others writing under the pen name "Publius". As this dissertation from RenewAmerica says 

"...writing under a pseudonym did not, in itself, do anyone any harm, and...such concealment 'is not necessarily a cowardly or sinister act.' As the original Publius argued in Federalist No. 1, keeping one's identity concealed can force readers to focus on the quality of your arguments, rather than on personalities. It's harder to get ad hominem about a writer you can't identify. So a pseudonym can serve a good purpose in public discourse."

"More than two centuries ago, when nearly everyone wrote political commentary under a pseudonym, there was often intense speculation about who was writing as 'Publius' or 'Brutus'..., or 'A Freeman' or 'The Federal Farmer.' While public hints were sometimes offered, a lot of this speculation was kept to private correspondence between friends. Perhaps there was a kind of 'hold fire' understanding, with neither side in major debates like the ratification of the Constitution able to foresee a lasting advantage to 'outing' someone on the other side, since one's own side might suffer the next casualty. But everyone also understood that they were using devices that were both useful and risky, and that anyone who could derive a decisive tactical advantage by exploding an adversary's cover might do so, and no one would be in a position to cry 'foul' about it — whatever the consequences to career, reputation, or personal relationships."

Is there an issue about using an anonymous or pseudo anonymous name to post on the internet? No. Witness all the screen names that are used on a wide variety of sites. I had an argument some years back with Kathryn Jones, who was previously editor of the Glen Rose Reporter regarding her use of quoting me, using my real name, etc in an article about this site, without one attempt to discover that it was my husband's issue which he had written about, and I was not at that point actively engaged with. Her argument was that people KNEW who I was because of the female avatar that was with my posts; my argument was that I was not aware, nor did I give permission to be included in an article BY my internet screen name, since it was my husband and not I that had the conversation with Ms Jones. Rather, I absolutely agree with the editor who succeeded Ms Jones, Amanda Kimble. 

if she decides to call herself Bozo the Clown (with her own photo attached) and leave a comment I feel is worth sharing, I would not attribute it to Tammy Knight (unless of course I first made a call to Tammy, explaining my intentions and verifying she had made the comments). Otherwise, Bozo would get all the accolades for her brilliance.

Finally, I would not consider myself an investigative reporter for revealing someone's identity in such a fashion. I would instead question my own character and also be concerned there could be legal (or moralistic) ramifications for making such a call.

From Niemann Reports

There have been several non-Internet cases in which courts have made it clear that freedom of speech does not come with a hidden price tag of speaker identification. The Electronic Frontier Foundation has said "the Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld the First Amendment right to speak anonymously," citing Buckley v. American Constitutional Law Foundation, Inc., McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission, and Talley v. California. In writing about continuing challenges to anonymity and pseudonymity, a briefing paper written for the conservative Cato Institute calls these ways of protecting one’s identity the "cornerstones of free speech."

Is there an issue about using an anonymous or pseudo anonymous name to post in a paper newspaper? No. Most newspapers I know definitely want to have the person who has written a letter use their real name, but it's not an unusual situation for a writer to make an arrangement with the newspaper to publish a letter under a pen name. Again, I have not done that myself, I always sign letters with my real name, but that's my choice.  If that happens, one would assume that the newspaper has verified and knows who the writer is, and has entered into an arrangement to allow the pen name. One would think that, given that is a newspaper arrangement, it's no one's business without a subpoena whose name is attached to a letter ot the editor, unless someone had a mission to invade someone's privacy and harrass a poster using some other means to do so. Interesting article regarding whether, since the internet, including newspaper online websites, doesn't require real names, should the paper version also bypass that? 

Why MIGHT someone choose to use an anonymous name? Does not mean that there is something nefarious afoot. If that were the case, the early founders of this country would not have done it. As this dissertation says 

"Writing pseudonymously was the norm in 1787-88. Usually the pseudonym concealed the identity of just one writer. Maybe this was a hangover from more dangerous revolutionary days. But it persisted in American political writing for a long time, and the purpose was always to 'hide' one's identity."

Again, from Niemann Reports

Marshall McLuhan observed that communications technologies reshape the world into a global village. Anyone who’s ever lived in a small town knows that "everybody knows you" can be suffocating. One middle-aged man, a closeted homosexual in a southern community, wrote to me privately about how he felt a need to express himself in blog postings about gay rights but feared he would lose his job if his employer found out. Another frequent blogger’s spouse is employed by the school district that he criticizes vigorously in his postings. For them, anonymity is essential to their ability to participate.

These issues are not unique to the Internet. Indeed, early American journalists often wrote under pen names, particularly in the Revolutionary period, when the oppressive danger was not merely a tyranny of the majority but a tyranny backed up by military force. Founding Fathers Ben Franklin, John Jay, Alexander Hamilton, and James Madison were among those who occasionally took advantage of pseudonyms. The "seditious libel" of which John Peter Zenger was accused included contributions from a number of anonymous and pseudonymous critics of the Crown.

Military force? Or could it be someone that wants to frivolously harrass someone based on an expressed, legal opinion? 

Even if the law ultimately shields the forum’s host, there is a danger of having to defend against nuisance suits and attempts by plaintiffs to intimidate pseudonymous bloggers by demanding disclosure of their identities. 

An opinion in which, to the newspaper, the author is known, but in which the author chooses to use a pen name WITH PERMISSION of the paper, ought to be sacrosanct with regard to privacy UNLESS there is some compelling reason based on the content that there is a different reason to legally object. Unfortunately, there are some in this world that simply do not apparently understand the constitutional freedom of speech concept.