Should I have published comments from someone I suspect is hiding behind a pseudonym? That question forces me to revisit the vexed question of anonymity. But it also raises a far bigger and more disturbing issue – namely, the climate of fear that obviously deters many people from exercising their democratic right to say what they think, using their own names.
I have said before that I greatly value comments on this blog. The comments section provides a platform for people who have something useful to say and perhaps only limited means of expressing themselves publicly. But last month, in a rush of puritanical fervour provoked by the Posie Parker affair, I declared I would no longer publish pseudonymous comments – my rationale being that anonymity endangers rather than protects freedom of expression. When people are too timid to assert their right to free speech, its power is diminished and it becomes more vulnerable to attack. At least that’s my reasoning.
But obviously not everyone got that memo, because anonymous comments have continued to come in and a substantial unpublished backlog has accumulated. Now Jordan Heathcote, whoever he/she is, forces me to reconsider the whole issue.
The most obvious problem is that I have no practicable way of verifying that commenters such as Jordan Heathcote are who they purport to be. Most newspapers require writers of letters to the editor to provide an address and phone number so they can be authenticated if necessary – a precaution not available to me.
But there are other arguments – far more compelling ones – in favour of allowing pseudonyms, some of which were covered in feedback from readers responding to last month's post and explaining why they felt unable to comment under their own names.
Some of their comments follow. It’s hard to read them without experiencing the chilling sensation that New Zealand is no longer the free and open society many of us assumed it to be.
■ Someone using the pseudonym Lucia Maria said: “It is far easier for people to be brave when their income is protected. Those that are still working and have families to support and mortgages to pay will self-censor themselves out of the conversation if anonymity (even under a pseudonym) is removed as an outlet for their thoughts.”
■ “Anonymous” wrote: "I understand your view on names but I can’t provide mine. Unfortunately what you see in the media is endemic in corporations. The ability to hold alternative views on The Treaty, identity, climate change has been snubbed [perhaps he/she meant snuffed] out.
“I accept that you will consider me by my omission of a public response to be complicit in what is happening. But I need to protect my family’s wellbeing. Yes, an argument used by many over the years as they stood by and watched bad things happen. But like many I don’t have the luxury of putting it all at risk.
“We don’t need the jackboots of a physical oppressor, we have the modern equivalent. The Twitter mobs, the paid-by-government media and their self-selection of complicit 'reporters' and our politicians who are too scared like me to act. We have a society that enables the tyranny of the minority.”
■ Phil Blackwell, a frequent commenter who uses the nom-de-plume Tinman but is prepared to be identified, urged me to cut pseudonymous commenters some slack. He wrote: “The commenters here are largely intelligent, thoughtful and erudite (although often wrong) and I hope you give some leeway for those who need that anonymity.”
■ “Nicola” wrote that she and her husband supported the Free Speech Union, but her husband relied on the Wellington Beltway for his income, and economic reality demanded that they keep their views to themselves. If they wanted to join a public protest they would go somewhere they were unknown, such as Palmerston North. “It … feels like a copout but within the Beltway today, it is hellish for any NZer who isn’t at least as left as the Greens.”
(Well might Nicola and her husband support the FSU; their moral quandary shows how desperately it’s needed.)
■ Trevor Hughes, who posts comments as Trev1, is another who defends anonymity. He wrote that disallowing pseudonyms risks throwing the baby out with the bathwater. “As some posters have noted, without anonymity their free speech may put them at serious risk. Yet they may also have insights to share that are particularly illuminating.”
■ Tom Hunter mentioned a regular commenter on Kiwiblog who, using his own name, had criticised a government department. “Eventually this led someone to identify his partner, who worked in another government department, and threaten to out both of them as ‘far Right extremists’. He had no choice but to leave the forum, although it's suspected - judging from [his] writing and debating style - that he has returned with a [pseudo]nym.
Tom continued: “I get your point that people may have to put their careers on the line to stop this thing and that's what you're trying to force, but I don't think that's going to work when you've got people like those above who have to take care of their families and provide for them.”
There was further comment on Muriel Newman’s Breaking Views website, which also published my post.
■ Dee M wrote: “Many people are too scared to identify themselves for a variety of reasons, often connected to their employment. We have plenty of examples of people being hounded out of their jobs for expressing their unfashionable opinions openly. And look at Thomas Cranmer!” [Thomas Cranmer is the nom de plume of a senior lawyer who appears unwilling to admit authorship of his authoritative and influential articles, presumably for fear of professional repercussions.]
■ Chris Morris: “I agree with the general policy of standing by what you write, but there have been so many instances of people doxed and ‘punished’ that I am more than a little concerned at the practicalities of its application.”
■ Peter Ness: “I have to agree with Dee M and his comment re blogging anonymously. Many people stood up for free speech on the lawn of Parliament and were mandated out of their jobs, homes and livelihoods. If you’re Mike Hosking … you can say what you like, within reason, because it’s going to be a big call to fire him for what he says and watch your ratings sink like a stone. Very different if you’re a policeman or doctor, nurse etc. An anonymous voice, small and tiny is worth listening to (that’s courtesy of Horton hears a Who).”
■ Another anonymous commenter on Breaking Views said he stood to lose a 40-year career and his home if he spoke out. He went on: “Equity is where everyone has to have the same outcome no matter their circumstance. It seems you want everyone to speak out immediately no matter their circumstance. I didn’t think you pushed an equity barrow. Maybe you should focus more on equality of opportunity – giving everyone the chance to speak out in the way that is best for them. Do Aesop’s fables carry less weight because the original author is anonymous?”
The striking thing about all this is that if the commenters are to be believed, and I have no reason to doubt them, freedom of speech in New Zealand is far more precarious than most of us imagined. When people are afraid to speak their minds for fear of adverse consequences, we are effectively no better than Putin’s Russia or Xi Jinping’s China. You could be excused for wondering how long it will be before people start circulating New Zealand-style samizdats - the clandestine newsletters published by dissenters in the Soviet Union.
Things may not be so bad here that people risk arrest or imprisonment for speaking out, but the chilling effect is no less real. The threat of ostracism, career derailment or denunciation on social media can be almost as powerful as the fear of a knock on the door from the secret police in the middle of the night.
In fact in some ways it’s more insidious because it’s not declared or overt. Limitations on free speech are imposed not by statute or government edict, but by unwritten rules policed by vindictive zealots determined to make an example of anyone who challenges the dominant ideological consensus.
This is something new. Even during the prime ministership of Robert Muldoon, which is generally considered the high-water mark of authoritarian government in modern New Zealand history, people didn’t feel this intimidated. You have to go back to the Public Safety Conservation Act, which was used to criminalise pro-wharfie comment during the 1951 waterfront dispute, to find a more oppressively censorious political environment – and that legislation was invoked on that occasion in response to a singular and relatively short-lived event. This time it’s open-ended. There’s no fixed time frame beyond which we can assume free speech will be permitted to flourish again.
All this is a long-winded way of saying that I’ve reversed my decision to disallow anonymous comments on this blog. Comments such as those reproduced above have persuaded me that allowing people a voice is more important than taking the moral high ground on whether they identify themselves.
I still lament that many people hide behind pseudonyms for no better reason than they lack the courage to stand up for opinions they are legally entitled to hold. I also deplore the tendency for anonymity to result in commenters engaging in cheap shots and puerile slanging matches – a fate that has befallen other blogs (though not this one), and which wouldn’t happen if commenters had to be named. Accordingly, people who identify themselves are far more likely to get their comments published here. Opinions carry far more weight when there’s a name to them.
But what’s even more lamentable than people sheltering behind pseudonyms for reasons of timidity is that many commenters are genuinely fearful of repercussions if they identify themselves. Freedom of expression is not served by denying them a voice – and ultimately, freedom of expression must take precedence over secondary concerns.
Karl du Fresne, a freelance journalist, is the former editor of The Dominion newspaper. He blogs at karldufresne.blogspot.co.nz.
But obviously not everyone got that memo, because anonymous comments have continued to come in and a substantial unpublished backlog has accumulated. Now Jordan Heathcote, whoever he/she is, forces me to reconsider the whole issue.
The most obvious problem is that I have no practicable way of verifying that commenters such as Jordan Heathcote are who they purport to be. Most newspapers require writers of letters to the editor to provide an address and phone number so they can be authenticated if necessary – a precaution not available to me.
But there are other arguments – far more compelling ones – in favour of allowing pseudonyms, some of which were covered in feedback from readers responding to last month's post and explaining why they felt unable to comment under their own names.
Some of their comments follow. It’s hard to read them without experiencing the chilling sensation that New Zealand is no longer the free and open society many of us assumed it to be.
■ Someone using the pseudonym Lucia Maria said: “It is far easier for people to be brave when their income is protected. Those that are still working and have families to support and mortgages to pay will self-censor themselves out of the conversation if anonymity (even under a pseudonym) is removed as an outlet for their thoughts.”
■ “Anonymous” wrote: "I understand your view on names but I can’t provide mine. Unfortunately what you see in the media is endemic in corporations. The ability to hold alternative views on The Treaty, identity, climate change has been snubbed [perhaps he/she meant snuffed] out.
“I accept that you will consider me by my omission of a public response to be complicit in what is happening. But I need to protect my family’s wellbeing. Yes, an argument used by many over the years as they stood by and watched bad things happen. But like many I don’t have the luxury of putting it all at risk.
“We don’t need the jackboots of a physical oppressor, we have the modern equivalent. The Twitter mobs, the paid-by-government media and their self-selection of complicit 'reporters' and our politicians who are too scared like me to act. We have a society that enables the tyranny of the minority.”
■ Phil Blackwell, a frequent commenter who uses the nom-de-plume Tinman but is prepared to be identified, urged me to cut pseudonymous commenters some slack. He wrote: “The commenters here are largely intelligent, thoughtful and erudite (although often wrong) and I hope you give some leeway for those who need that anonymity.”
■ “Nicola” wrote that she and her husband supported the Free Speech Union, but her husband relied on the Wellington Beltway for his income, and economic reality demanded that they keep their views to themselves. If they wanted to join a public protest they would go somewhere they were unknown, such as Palmerston North. “It … feels like a copout but within the Beltway today, it is hellish for any NZer who isn’t at least as left as the Greens.”
(Well might Nicola and her husband support the FSU; their moral quandary shows how desperately it’s needed.)
■ Trevor Hughes, who posts comments as Trev1, is another who defends anonymity. He wrote that disallowing pseudonyms risks throwing the baby out with the bathwater. “As some posters have noted, without anonymity their free speech may put them at serious risk. Yet they may also have insights to share that are particularly illuminating.”
■ Tom Hunter mentioned a regular commenter on Kiwiblog who, using his own name, had criticised a government department. “Eventually this led someone to identify his partner, who worked in another government department, and threaten to out both of them as ‘far Right extremists’. He had no choice but to leave the forum, although it's suspected - judging from [his] writing and debating style - that he has returned with a [pseudo]nym.
Tom continued: “I get your point that people may have to put their careers on the line to stop this thing and that's what you're trying to force, but I don't think that's going to work when you've got people like those above who have to take care of their families and provide for them.”
There was further comment on Muriel Newman’s Breaking Views website, which also published my post.
■ Dee M wrote: “Many people are too scared to identify themselves for a variety of reasons, often connected to their employment. We have plenty of examples of people being hounded out of their jobs for expressing their unfashionable opinions openly. And look at Thomas Cranmer!” [Thomas Cranmer is the nom de plume of a senior lawyer who appears unwilling to admit authorship of his authoritative and influential articles, presumably for fear of professional repercussions.]
■ Chris Morris: “I agree with the general policy of standing by what you write, but there have been so many instances of people doxed and ‘punished’ that I am more than a little concerned at the practicalities of its application.”
■ Peter Ness: “I have to agree with Dee M and his comment re blogging anonymously. Many people stood up for free speech on the lawn of Parliament and were mandated out of their jobs, homes and livelihoods. If you’re Mike Hosking … you can say what you like, within reason, because it’s going to be a big call to fire him for what he says and watch your ratings sink like a stone. Very different if you’re a policeman or doctor, nurse etc. An anonymous voice, small and tiny is worth listening to (that’s courtesy of Horton hears a Who).”
■ Another anonymous commenter on Breaking Views said he stood to lose a 40-year career and his home if he spoke out. He went on: “Equity is where everyone has to have the same outcome no matter their circumstance. It seems you want everyone to speak out immediately no matter their circumstance. I didn’t think you pushed an equity barrow. Maybe you should focus more on equality of opportunity – giving everyone the chance to speak out in the way that is best for them. Do Aesop’s fables carry less weight because the original author is anonymous?”
The striking thing about all this is that if the commenters are to be believed, and I have no reason to doubt them, freedom of speech in New Zealand is far more precarious than most of us imagined. When people are afraid to speak their minds for fear of adverse consequences, we are effectively no better than Putin’s Russia or Xi Jinping’s China. You could be excused for wondering how long it will be before people start circulating New Zealand-style samizdats - the clandestine newsletters published by dissenters in the Soviet Union.
Things may not be so bad here that people risk arrest or imprisonment for speaking out, but the chilling effect is no less real. The threat of ostracism, career derailment or denunciation on social media can be almost as powerful as the fear of a knock on the door from the secret police in the middle of the night.
In fact in some ways it’s more insidious because it’s not declared or overt. Limitations on free speech are imposed not by statute or government edict, but by unwritten rules policed by vindictive zealots determined to make an example of anyone who challenges the dominant ideological consensus.
This is something new. Even during the prime ministership of Robert Muldoon, which is generally considered the high-water mark of authoritarian government in modern New Zealand history, people didn’t feel this intimidated. You have to go back to the Public Safety Conservation Act, which was used to criminalise pro-wharfie comment during the 1951 waterfront dispute, to find a more oppressively censorious political environment – and that legislation was invoked on that occasion in response to a singular and relatively short-lived event. This time it’s open-ended. There’s no fixed time frame beyond which we can assume free speech will be permitted to flourish again.
All this is a long-winded way of saying that I’ve reversed my decision to disallow anonymous comments on this blog. Comments such as those reproduced above have persuaded me that allowing people a voice is more important than taking the moral high ground on whether they identify themselves.
I still lament that many people hide behind pseudonyms for no better reason than they lack the courage to stand up for opinions they are legally entitled to hold. I also deplore the tendency for anonymity to result in commenters engaging in cheap shots and puerile slanging matches – a fate that has befallen other blogs (though not this one), and which wouldn’t happen if commenters had to be named. Accordingly, people who identify themselves are far more likely to get their comments published here. Opinions carry far more weight when there’s a name to them.
But what’s even more lamentable than people sheltering behind pseudonyms for reasons of timidity is that many commenters are genuinely fearful of repercussions if they identify themselves. Freedom of expression is not served by denying them a voice – and ultimately, freedom of expression must take precedence over secondary concerns.
Karl du Fresne, a freelance journalist, is the former editor of The Dominion newspaper. He blogs at karldufresne.blogspot.co.nz.
14 comments:
I was astonished that Karl was so far removed from current reality. From so many sources now, Council management plans, Teaching Council newsletters etc, it is very plain that criticism of the current pro maori culture will likely be career curtailing, if not ending.(Remember the trainee nurse who dared to ask a question on a marae?) And comments are dredged up and used against folk 20 years after. I have just read the Musket Wars. The utu motivation was ludicrously embedded. Many suspect or realise it is still so today (A very mild relative gently "complained" to a maori neighbours about some gross antisocial aspect of their neighbouring property or antics there. For weeks after dead eels were tossed over the fence. My reliever teacher wife unwittingly used a car park which a local maori teacher had come to regard as hers. A stone was placed under the wiper blade, ruining the windscreen.) With all maori having so many relatives, there are invariably some or many of very dubious character and ethics. To anyone questioning modern maori demands, the utu risk to person and more especially property is not inconsiderable. (Occupants of state houses have a different respect for property than home owners)
When I was at school not long after WW2 we were not told that the men fought for reinterpretation of the Treaty. We were told they fought for freedom. (The concept of non racial democracy was a bit advanced for children) We were told how in Nazi Germany, even among family and "friends" no one dared criticise the State. But that is now the situation here. Only a few totally independent souls not directly associated with any business (including mere ownership of premises) now dare express opinions openly. Most that do are elderly retired old men, like me.
Look at what happened to barrister Jon Holbrook in the UK - twice expelled from his Chambers (twice exonerated) for airing his views on Twitter, as @jonholb.
You've made the right decision, Karl.
Whether people use their real name or not is not the issue.
It's allowing them to express their strongly felt opinions in a public forum while feeling safe to do so, and hopefully encourage others to follow suit.
Only people who make a big deal out of using their own name have nothing to lose, probably because they're retired or too stupid to realise the threat. And as I said in my original comment, you can just make up a name anyway which it appears Jordan and others have done. Simple human ingenuity!
Punishing the commentors for the oppressive and threatening state of NZ public debate achieves nothing. In fact it exacerbates the problem.
This awful government and its extreme Left-wing allies are the enemy of free speech and every comment will be needed to bring them down and return NZ to a society where people no longer feel afraid to identify themselves when speaking their minds.
"Things may not be so bad here that people risk arrest or imprisonment for speaking out ...."
Billy TK and Vinny Eastwood.
Imprisoned for exercising their right to assembly, to protest and to free speech.
As you have reconsidered your view on anonymity, please also reconsider the direness of the situation here.
There is a saying: "Kill a chicken to scare the monkeys."
Two men jave been imprisoned. The monkeys wish to remain anonymous for fear of their lives.
As I write this, I ponder whether to be anonymous or not. It is the first time I have read this blog. I have no social standing in NZ nor any wealth to shield me from attacks. I am a nobody. But I have a good mind, heart, will to live free and sovereign and desire to engage with others of like mind. If I put my name here, then who knows what doors that may open. When I had a "job" I was willing to sacrifice it all rather than consent to a coerced jab rape. I chose to not act from a spirit of fear.
And so I sign off with my real name here.
Evil abounds when good men do nothing.
Freedom is not free.
It cannot be bought, but will cost everything you have.
I said that I wouldn't like to use my last name out of respect to my family. All those with that name. It is specific to one family. Sorry but having an opinion these days puts you at such a risk and repercussions can go further than you might think.
It wasn't posted. It may have been accidentally deleted by me upon pressing publish it sometimes happens.
My thoughts have become a little more polite now that a certain PM has stepped down and gone somewhere. However the damage has been done and still continues. Throughout the western world democracy has swiftly been undermined.
Now one thing is for sure Karl we don't live in Russia and you are talking about New Zealand who is on the other side. To me they're not doing so well as Russia, they on the other hand for whatever reason give journalists pollitical asylum. Good for them.
Bed Bath and Beyond have gone into bankruptcy. Terrible for all those people employed by them but poignant as they attempted to boycott My Pillow as the guy was a Trump supporter.
Oh dear. Nice to hear about this kind of pushback. People boycotted them in return. Big corporations and goverment? What was it Benito Mussolini purrportedly said, something about that being the definition of fascism?
Karl,
That’s the right decision as far as I’m concerned. I’ve always commented anonymously on this site, and used a VPN too. I think that to reveal your identity would be foolishly brave.
It’s not hard to imagine a bleak New Zealand ahead of us:
Labour squeaks in for a third term at the next election with the Greens and the Maori Party in coalition. Immediately Hua Puapua is taken out of mothballs and every government department and agency is directed to implement it. Opposition to this blatant takeover of the country grows febrile; emigration to Australia is at record levels. Then, at a rally in Northland our own figurative Archduke Franz Ferdinand is assassinated and New Zealand rapidly descends into vicious civil war. People are surprised at the ubiquity of arms after Labour’s efforts at seizure and prohibition. Shadowy intelligence agencies are combing through sites such as this one, collecting names, inquiring, collating… Stories soon begin to spread of activists and outspoken public intellectuals being taken from their homes at night by armed squads, and in an echo of Chile and Argentina in the 70s, becoming our own desaparecidos.
We have been ruled by a fascist dictatorship since 25 March 2020. The all party response to the parliament protest is the first indication that we are no longer a democracy - not one sitting MP spoke to the protestors. The next test of the proposition that we are a fascist dictatorship will be whether or not the result of the election this year is a grand coalition between Labour and National. Should that happen then you will know that you may be held to task in the future for comments you have made in the past on social media.
What an absolutely abhorent situation it is for people to be living on such a knife edge, when to say who you are can become a tool for power weilding bottom feeders, who are so anxious to comply with a dictatorship that they don't realise they have destroyed their own freedom of speech. The above letters in reply provide a real insight into what this country has become in a few short years. I can understand their reluctance to use their given names on open forums and think that the choice for annonimity should stay for the numerous reasons given above, so thank you to all those speaking out, because we must. We cannot let whaat is happening continue and like rats in a sewer the light of day can work wonders, that' why they fear it.
I have recently entered management in a large corporation, I find myself self censoring all the time now.
Whats sad is I hold very moderate sometimes leftist views but only the most extreme leftist view is acceptable now.
For instance while supporting Maori language, culture and it's inclusion in everyday life I oppose saying karakia in the workplace or school.
In my view this is simply separating religion and the state. Apparently this makes me a racist even though I am Maori.
I have lived much of my life facing fanatics who feel justified in 'punishing' those who hold an opposing view.
In the well documented reading wars of phonics vs whole language on the Kapiti Coast in the 1970s to 2000, local teachers said they were threatened with job loss if they visited Doris Ferry's private school room where she taught phonic reading to pupils who had failed to read in local schools. Local journalists also told us they were threatened with a similar fate.
However when some teachers took their annoyance of pesky phonic, out on small children in a variety of threatening ways it was a national scandal.
Twenty-five years later some of the heat has dissipated from this educational scrap yet disappointingly, only 10% of NZ new entrant pupils receive structured literacy (old fashioned intensive phonics).
This is the reading instruction that would help enormously in reducing NZ's appalling reading failure,as has been shown conclusively in neuro and cognitive science. But still dominating the field is whole language dressed up in sheep's clothing and renamed balanced literacy. Some token phonic readers thrown into the mix,I know from years of experience is not the answer. The mixture can cause scrambled brains in some children, particularly low decile ones.
Recently I requested a phonic instruction volume from a librarian. She assertively informed me that English was not phonic but Maori was and suggested I buy the book. I learned that actually the book was available on inter-loan. Now this library had welcomed what I considered grotesque drag queens reading books
to infants. The local bookshop had no desire to acquire my requested book either but many shelves of graphic novels (comics) for our poorly educated NZ children.
This whole Russian war is just one big scam devised by the Kharzarians for their one world agenda. I think it's pretty dumb to not be able to call it for what it is.
What's good is the pushback over the trans BS. But puberty blockers are being prescribed in NZ more than any other country on a % basis. 10 times more. Hideous to do this to our children. The permanent harm this will cause. I'm just dumbfounded. This is the real conversion therapy.
Khazarians? Please explain.
Karl makes a thoughtful and thought-provoking comment here. Should public comments be made where the author is not able to be identified? I have made public comments off and on for nearly 60 years and have, without exception, signed them with my full name. I’ve always believed that this should be the case, but have to admit that I have nothing personal to lose by doing so. However, I need to accept that this would be an impediment if one’s income, business or social standing would be adversely affected. So yes, there is a place for anonymous comment, but there are limits. I don’t believe that an editor should permit such comments which personally attack a named individual. I am also aware of a columnist who has responded anonymously to criticism, masquerading as an impartial and objective third party.
I seem to recall that the N Z Listener in around the 1980s announced that would only publish named letters (with considered exceptions in special circumstances). This was a departure from conventional journalism and thus prompted quite some debate. This policy has stood the test of time and since been adopted by other outlets.
Anonymous said...
Khazarians? Please explain.
April 25, 2023 at 12:02 PM
Hitler called them Arians.
Post a Comment
Thanks for engaging in the debate!
Because this is a public forum, we will only publish comments that are respectful and do NOT contain links to other sites. We appreciate your cooperation.