I don’t think I can recall a single instance where a blog commenter lost their job, or was harassed or stalked, or suffered in any way for commenting on a blog post using their own name.

You now have two reported instances here of commenters that have been harassed: mine and Gaia’s Child. You can recall them henceforth.

For those of us who have far more unique names, our signing our names is far more revelatory, and causes us to take on much more risk. Thank you, but I prefer to not do that, and I can see why people who comment on controversial topics might not want to be so precisely pinpointed and localized as targets for the crazies out there.

The only governors for commenters are the blog owner/staff and the commenter’s own ethics. If the commenter is really out of line, it is up to the owner/staff to edit or deny posts.

The “audience” must take a back seat to the protection of the family. End of story.

“When you ARE a publisher, even of a blog that has a tiny audience, I do think you have an obligation to put your name to it.”

An obligation to whom? Since when does the general public or any blogger’s feelings take precedence over protection of family?
Using a pseudonym is perfectly proper and fair.

Good question. The answer is an obligation to the audience — those who appreciate what you’ve written, those who don’t and those whom you’ve criticized.

Of course, no one can or ahould force a blogger to identify himself or herself, but all obligations don’t arise from compulsion.

Don’t people generally agree that publishing political attacks on this or that party or candidate in the form of anonymous leaflets is not “proper and fair?” I think so; that’s why there actually are laws against unsourced campaign literature.

What about anonymous robo-calls? Ditto.

And how about radio and TV ads that criticize without identifying the source? Ditto. Indeed, not only are such ads in campaigns illegal but broadcasters would refuse to air anonymously sourced ads on any subject at any time?

What about an anonymous op-ed in The New York Times excoriating Obama — or Bush?
The Times wouldn’t print one, but if it did, most people would think it neither proper nor fair.

Does the MEDIUM of communication change the strong sense we have that anonymous critiques are improper and unfair, if not worse? I see no reason why that should be. The Internet does empower many more people by giving them easy tools to publish and reach a wide audience, so that the traditional media now have a powerful competitor. That’s a huge step forward and needs to be further encouraged. In the process, why should we expect less of the new media than of the old?

Perhaps it doesn’t matter that an obscure blogger like me remains anonymous, but what about when I acquire an audience the size of Glenn Reynolds’ or Matt Drudge’s? Would it still be proper and fair for me to be hurling barbs at folks for an audience of millions, shaping daily news agendas in the process? Where is the line to be drawn between the small casual blogger and the big influential one? That’s why I recapped how it was that Glenn Reynolds came to be InstaPundit. And that’s why I do not blog anonymously.

I think Busboy has it about right. Your pseudonym stands for yourself, and it is just as much a part of you as your real name in matters of opinion when commenting and blogging. There should be no degrading of comments because of the use of a cover name; none, in my opinion, either in my comments or on my blog. Which reminds me, out of laziness I have not typed in my blog address for some time. It is there now.

Perhaps many on the web are not really tuned in to the use of pseudonyms by authors, which is a well-known tradition. A close relative of mine wrote short stories for the pulp market, and was good enough to have three stories in one issue a number of times. She was forced by the publishers to adopt several pseudonyms as a result.

I would ask anyone what is the harm? If you really want to find a commenter or blogger, and have real cause, it is possible to do so. But, that act leaves a trail also, I am told, so if there is any harassment problem the attacker can be found, even through proxies, if you have proper legal cause. One hopes it never comes to such an end.

I didn’t start commenting for a long time because of not really being comfortable with any “handle” I could come up with until the day I was reading OUR ANGRY EARTH and I got to the part about self-regulating systems. I thought I’m a self-regulating system myself, I’m a child of Earth and thus Gaia’s Child.

For the record, I’m Karen Morland and I agree with one of the above commenters who suggested a Q&A for us newbies, especially those of us who are also clueless.

Mannning, I am very sorry for what happened to you and your family. Both myself and my daughter have had it happen us because we publicly stood up for our beliefs. You’re right, it’s right to tell when the crazies are really serious.

An obligation to whom? Since when does the general public or any blogger’s feelings take precedence over protection of family?
Using a pseudonym is perfectly proper and fair.

Since when does the sensitivity and ego of a blogger take precedent over polite but firm freedom of expression, right or wrong?

I am seldom if ever provoked to use any smutty language or name-calling, but I do state my opinions as directly as I know how, and, I can be dead wrong, too.

On this site, one can expect to be snarked now and then, although I have been given a no-retort pass almost all of the time by Moran.

Still, I see a difference between publishing a blog and posting comments on a site. I don’t think any of us in the early Slate Fray thought we were hiding behind our handles. Even though we regulars often worked hard on our comments and rebuttals and sometimes thought we did a better job than Slate’s contributors, it simply was not our publication and we were not its publishers, so we felt no obligation to state our names. Plus, it was fun to create an online personality that was readily recognized by the other Fray regulars.

When you ARE a publisher, even of a blog that has a tiny audience, I do think you have an obligation to put your name to it.

The problem of stalking and threats may be a different matter…

May be a different matter? How easily you gloss over an essential problem! Perhaps you have never been harassed in person, in writing, or over the phone for your opinions on the net. Perhaps you never had your wife pick up the phone only to be subjected to vile comments–upsetting her terribly–by obviously leftwing kooks!

Perhaps you have never had serious threats made to you, and the police, you find, are simply not interested in your situation. “If he calls again, let us know!” So he calls again, and no action. Yes, most threats of this kind are empty, but try telling that to the wife!

You want to post comments, but you do not want this harassment of the family. So you adopt a pseudonym, and go on posting. THIS is my reason for being mannning and not using my real name anymore, and I will continue to do so, here, and elsewhere (unless banned, of course).