Idaho lawmaker (and ex-newspaperman) wants to ban anonymous blogging
By David Neiwert Tuesday Dec 16, 2008 4:00pm
My ex-boss is not exactly the sharpest tool in the shed. I knew that when I fled his newsroom in 1985.
But now he's displaying it for all the world to see:
Steve Hartgen would like a law requiring people to use their real names when they post material online. As a retired newspaper editor and publisher from Twin Falls, Hartgen is doubly aware that the news media catches a lot of flak, much of it politicall motivated, and its origin can be questionable.
He recognized in an interview with the Lewiston Tribune that the Internet has provided an opportunity for users to sound off on just about any subject, often responding to news stories or editorials via e-mail. But unlike letters to the editor, those persons typically are not required to identify themselves before commenting online. As a result, anonymity spawns a ton of misinformation which often is spouted by those who like to blame "the media" for the country's various ills.
As we can see, this is all about protecting "the media" from those meanies who like to complain about them anonymously. Because, evidently, they really really need it.
Pay no attention, oh you peons on the other side of the curtain, to the frauds operating the media scam that the Web has exposed. After all, they have themselves spawned "tons of misinformation" over the years that has gone uncorrected, and all with their names out there on the front pages. A lack of anonymity certainly has not prevented that.
And might we expect a similar law for people who publish material pseudonymously in the non-Web publishing biz -- say, Joe Klein when he wrote Primary Colors? Or any of the many pseudonymous newspapers writers who've made careers over the years (such as Dear Abby)?
I know that Hartgen knows all about Dear Abby, because he published it for years at the Twin Falls Times-News, where he was my boss for a year (1984-85). I fled as soon as it was reasonably possible because it became clear in short order that he was a clueless, rather pointy-haired boss. Nowadays he's an equally clueless Idaho legislator.
Here's a reality check for Steve: A lot of people use pseudonyms because they face employment or other personal repercussions for making their real opinions public, particularly if they criticize the powerful. (I know you know all about that, too, Steve.) Taking away that cover will remove valuable voices and important perspectives from the public dialogue.
Of course, I suspect that's what people like you have in mind anyway, since those dirty bloggers are treading all over the media's nice carpet. What you're attempting is a form of censorship that clearly tramples all over free speech. Nice trick for a former newspaper guy, eh?
In any event, people aren't as dumb as guys like Hartgen always seemed to think newspaper readers were. Most people are able to assess the difference in the quality of information from anonymous sources; people understand that it's not as immediately reliable, on a surface level at least. But its anonymity doesn't automatically make it unreliable, either. Conversely, the presence of a regular byline in the New York Times is no guarantee of reliability either. Remember Judy Miller?
Blogging has taken away newspapers' monopoly on reliable information and, more to the point, worthwhile viewpoints, much of which is indeed available on the Internet anonymously. The discourse isn't as easily controlled by our would-be editorial mandarins, and a lot of that has to do with the democratization of public expression -- including the ability to write anonymously or pseudonymously. And FWIW, I've used my very own name since the day I began blogging (as has John), but I haven't presumed that it's made me a better or more reliable blogger than Digby or Atrios.
This legislation, fortunately, doesn't even pass the First Amendment sniff test. But that never stopped guys like Steve Hartgen from trying dumb stunts like this in the past, and it obviously won't again.
Kevin Richert at the Statesman and Don@IdahoRadio have more.
Login or Register to post comments.
How else can I make my dirty jokes?
... everyone would suffer then!
*
far-right-wingers from slashing my tires?
Hmm...I think we just explained why...
As our civil liberties continue to erode, I wonder whether we'll look back upon the good old days when we were able to express ourselves on line without fear of being hounded by the thought police.
As soon as the sounds of Goosestepping fades from the street outside my door, I'll identify myself and comment.
Steve Hartgen doesn't know it yet, but he wants to re-invent AOL and Compuserve. https, fingerprint sensors and social security numbers ought to do it.
It should pay for itself too !
The fingerprint sensors might slow most of us down for a while, but the rest isn't going to be much of a deterrent. Thousands of identities are stolen every day. If you take out the normal money or merchandise trail common to most internet fraud, it would be impossible to enforce such restrictions. You'd have to shut down all the library, college and internet cafe access points. And even if the impersonators operated from home, matching IP numbers reliably to actual humans is a legal slog. Just a little civil disobedience would be constipating enough to bring everyone back to sanity, with the possible exception of the idiot who came up with this hair-brained idea.
Can we ban "unnamed sources" at the same time?
I got a good chuckle out of this knucklehead, Hartgen. I suppose your history with him makes it something less than entertaining.
Do you think that cops are going to waste their time trying to enforcing a law like this for the average person?
Since the law is 100% un-enforcable to the public at large, what would a law like this be used for?
It would be used as a tool to selectively attack political enemies.
The average person would still be able to make a myspace account under any psuedo-name they wanted. A person makes a website under a psuedo-name and makes a political statement they go to jail.
Communist China, North Korea, and the Islamic Republic of Iran do this kind of shit.
The lines become more blurred everyday. It's a sad state of affairs when you can't tell the difference between America and Communist China.
be happy if everyone's personal info was online at a click of a button too? Where do you draw a line?
Yet Bill Kristol whose hardly been right about anything gets a job at the New York Times. Go figure.
and (bleep) the rest of them who would wish to shut us up.
He's suggesting a "show us you papers" world on the Internet.
What next, a special arm of the police complete with black
armbands that say "Internet Police" ?
These (bleeping) (bleep)holes have already ruined the (bleeping) country.
Good analogy ...
This isn't going to go anywhere - because it would strip EVERYONE of anonymity - NOT just the peons he is clearly desperate to intimidate, persecute and prosecute.
Does he really thinK none of the rich and powerful blog or post online? What an idiot.
S T U P I D.
*
Does this mean my channel 2 news anchors Creamy Goodness and Gustapo Esteduiazeuesilcious will have to use their real names too?
I’ll start using my real identity when newspapers stop quoting anonymous sources. How’s that for a compromise? What, no compromise? Fine. You’ll have to pry my avatar from my cold dead mind then.
only outlaws will blog anonymously.
I'm changing my real name to curtilingus.
If I legally change my name to Ysbaddaden, would they be able to prosecute me if they can't pronounce my name?
with the horse he rode in on.
Jassacks like Hartgen run newspapers - is it any wonder that the print media is dying when twerps like that are the "brain trust?"
when they start printing real political and world news.
This is mind-bendingly stupid.
*
So would Benjamin Franklin be prosecuted for writing the "Silence Dogood" letters to the The New-England Courant? It's the same thing.
Just a single quote from the 14 letters that were published under Ben's pen name. "I am a mortal enemy to arbitrary government and unlimited power."
Just like newspapers the MSM fear their relevance and income. Here's a simply idea to save their behinds. Do your job and the bloggers wont have to. They think this all came about because of the opportunity with the internet. Truth is, the truth seekers got tired of the lies and pandering and found an outlet other than handing out fliers and posting signs on a telephone pole. Thanks to people like John here at C&L we get the truth these days and it scares the shit out of the MSM.
where you graduated from David but I'll hazard a guess that your old boss graduated from the same august institution of learning that gave us Sarah Palin B.A. The University of Idaho is my guess.
Hartgen didn't -- I think he went to University of Michigan, actually -- but I did.
There aren't that many reputable Schools of Journalism.
is good for the soul.
Okay, I admit it, I have to whack-off three times a day to keep from walking funny.
as we know, a degree in journalism is no qualification to
be a news reader.
I DO use my real name when I blog and post.
It's as real as any other name I have.
Let's see....
The family name was changed for convenience of spelling etc. when the patriarch arrived from Ye Olde Country.
My first birth certificate had one name on it,
then I got my brand spanky new one from the adoption folks,
Then there's the whole marriage thing.
So which "REAL" name would they like me to use?
Margeaggedon is as real a name as any of the others I have.
Maybe better, because I chose it myself.
I have no worries at all either, marge... I blog, comment under my name too. Captain Kangaroo. What does this retard not get?
oops, I double posted so i will just say that this guy is an asshole and does not like the truth. Besides what will happen when O'Loofa makes all his idiot commentors post their real name?
We should all make as many anonymous comments as possible before this guy takes office and takes them all away.
Wait...
That is another storyline...
his argument however if the law also precludes any newspaper from ever citing an "un-named" source and journalists are required by law to name their sources in court when required.
You found out..... well, I told everyone - it's no use, they'll find out sooner or later.
The nutjobs here have been going fucking crazy. You need to read some of the 'local' blogs. They've been keeping track of shit like this and more disturbing stuff as well.
The Political Game; Mountain Goat Report; The Unequivocal Notion; New West - Boise to name a few.
The latest from 'The Political Game' is a conservative pundit with his own radio show who is actually rounding up his like thinkers into "Bell's Bigots" brigades.
By the very nature of the vocation there can be no restrictions on who claims to be a journalist. They have to protect their sources if they are to truly do their job. Especially when rooting out government secrets. Unfortunately this also means that there can be no enforceable licensing standards unlike other professions. There are no educational standards. There shouldn't be either. In consequence journalism contains more than its' share of fools and charlatans and there is no way to get rid of them. The only way to judge a journalist is by their printed word. Just for the record David, in my book you're one of the good ones. All snarkiness aside.
NO COMMENT !
If you spent time in this area you know that one thing we have no shortage of is dull tools.
This tool is worried about misinformation from bloggers attacking the media?
Jesus H. Christ on a popcicle stick. After lying this country into war from just about every newspaper, he is worried about being attacked? First they scare us to death then they bitch when everyone finds out they were lying about the WMD or the mushroom clouds.
Straight Ahead...fuck this guy.
Dweeby little nerd politician.
C&L
C&L
C&L
C&L
Fuck your/my real name.
Dump your guts kids!!!
Sex.
Reminds me of the US post master who thought he could give everyone an email address and then charge full physical postage for emails. FLMAO! Well good luck with that law.
Journalists who quote anonymous sources aren't writing anonymously themselves. Quoting anonymous sources is rather controversial, but sometimes there is no other way to get the info out. And journalist do need to protect their sources at times.
Journalists generally will only write anonymously only when exposing their identity puts them in danger. Many of the Iraqi photographers shooting for AP had to have their work posted without a byline to protect themselves. Some journalists posting out of The Congo are currently doing so anonymously, to protect themselves.
Now posting here or on public online forums most people choose to do so anonymously to protect themselves in one manner or another, but who can be held to account when posting anonymously?
I am a member of an online forum that has a very strict rule of no anonymous posting. It's a wonderful online community, because we know who we are communicating with. We are very real and we are held accountable for what we post. It's a naturally flame-free forum. We treat each other nice and we get to know each other. We have become a worldwide community of friends. We even have real life get togethers. Such a thing would not be possible on an anonymous forum.
Just today, I was talking with my neighbor. I get my news from the internet. I do not watch TV, it makes me crazy. My neighbor does watch TV and he did not even know about the 50 $Billion dollar Ponzie scheme scandal in New York. Of course, I do not have the time or the resources to do an in-depth analysis as to why my neighbor had not even heard of this scandal, and it has been days since the story broke. Recently, there was a political cartoon on MSNBC politics that depicted a grave yard with the tombstones reading, 'Investigative Journalism', 'Newspapers', etc. How sad, I get my news from political cartoons and C&L ! LOL This is how I see it anyways.
How many John Smith's could there possibly be in Idaho?
Do they even have the internet in Idaho?
I'll stop using pseudonyms online as soon as journalists stop using "anonymous sources" to fudge their reports.
"Anonymous Pentagon sources tell CBS this evening that Iran has raspberry cake ready to be used against freedom loving people".
I was going to try find a way to post a dumb reply with the screen name "Steve Hartgen", then I realized it would be too much work. But that would have been a riot... har, har, har.
have been the norm at Hartgen's paper and others for, well, forever. And sure, we'll start identifying ourselves if he and the others behind the curtain of the editorial page identify the writers of the op-eds and the editors require reporters to put a name to their anonymous "sources close to the corporate rapists."
Don't ya just love it when fossils find a voice....
I'll go with the founding fathers. Ben Franklin used false names all the time.
Not having an editor who shouts "Ex-News Guy has GOOD IDEA for Internet".
Identity thieves love to steal published work. Don't believe me, just ask that Dear Abby of yours how many folks will write her to claim authorship of each and every anonymous poem she posts.
Now that publication credits are a standout on a resume, this goes double, and thieves know how and where to get credit, while laying the blame on their vics.
And, yes, I've experienced the dead possum left under the bedroom window, slashed tires, and two firings for letters to the editor. Your boss sounds like the kind of guy who sucks Roto-Rooter hoses.
Maybe he should spend his efforts doing something about the "un-named sources" that the MSM are always quoting and who are always WRONG.
These mainstream media morons are shitting themselves white because they are increasingly obsolete thanks to the Internet(s). Printed newspapers are dieing out and the extremist right wing lock on the nation's news media which culminated in the Christofascist regime's war crime atroities and opened the door to mass treason against us are crimes that the mainstream media are responsible for just as much as the Bush regime whom the MSM works for.
Listen to the dieing dinosaurs trying to save their own corrupt lives in the face of the comet that is the Internet(s).
At least mainstream media morons have copy editors.
When they are done with the internet, it will be little more than a place to buy shit. The end result of capitalism. Because buying shit is more important than anything else.
Idiots who post inflammatory comments under pseudonyms are cowards.
Login or Register to post comments.