Sorry Jeff, but I do not agree with your thesis. Here's my take: if media outlets such as the Patch want to promote discussion (and increase internet "hits" upon their sites) they should have a clear terms of use policy and enforce it. The Patch editors are having trouble deciding which comments to remove? There's an indication that the terms of use policy needs to be "tightened up." If the editors are not clear, how does one expect the readers to be different? While I share your view that many commentors stray off topic - to put it kindly - I do not agree that putting your real name "out there" is the answer. I would not drive around town with my phone number on my rear bumper, either. Not because I drive poorly, but because I would be opening myself up for needless harassment. Under your recommendation, a potential employer could do a Google search on a employment candidate's name. Past comments could be taken out of context, or maybe Republican employers would pass on Democratic job candidates, etc. When items are on the internet, search engines can retrieve them and the repercussions extend far beyond today's Patch discussion. Want to improve the comments section? Incorporate a "spell check" and grammar icon to help commentors before they hit the submit button.

Tommy,

I probably should've been more clear. What I meant was, the editors tend to pull the trigger on obvious aliases, but not all aliases are obvious. Short of some kind of verification process, which probably wouldn't work for Patch because that's all the editors would be doing, they struggle as to whether the comment actually violates the terms of use.

Though I doubt it, technically, John Locke could be his real name. So what do you do with those comments?

Jeff

WOO HOO I made the story!

Seriously though. Jeff, I have no problem providing you and/or the Patch with my real name and address. I do however have concerns about posting my opinions concerning local issues using my real name. I'm a business owner and father and I wouldn't want my customers to use my perfectly logical (IMO) opinion against me nor would I want my family to be harassed at school because somebody on the interwebz disagrees with me.
I don't think I've ever posted something even remotely insulting or out of line. We should all try to keep it light but there is so much anger out there it's disconcerting.

Thank you for writing about this very real online problem that enables these individuals to say whatever pops out of their addled brains without fear of anyone knowing who they are.

Jeff, good points. That's twice this month-at least. Either you are getting better or I'm getting more tolerant.

As you know, a local paper runs a weekly "reader comments" column that allows anonymity. That allows people to say whatever they wish without fear of being exposed as ignorant, bigoted, stupid, or whatever it is that they fear. I find that reading that column frequently causes me dispair for the human race in general.

So yes! If you want to say it have the courage and honesty to sign it--with your real name.

I almost always disclose my identity on public comments, but there are good reasons some people are reluctant to do so. Seems a few liberals are showing a much less progressive side when it comes to this issue. The constitution does not require attribution for freedom of speech!

Disagree.
The anonymity issue ran like a rash through Elaine Johnson's DGreport blog a few years ago, with little resolution or change.
I could give a frog's fat butt who is posting comments, my interest lies in the comment itself-and I've read asinine feedback from both the real and the puppet. Then again, I've never met William Vollrath, or Jeff Ward, or most anyone else in this forum. Can I prove they are who the say they are? Do I care?
Are there posters who hide behind puppets in order to sling mud? Yup, so just delete the comments regardless of the name. Moreover, if I wrote something inflammatory and signed it 'Peter Clemenza' would you verify the name in the phone book to be certain that person existed? What difference does it make?
No one has ever taken you to task in person for anything you've written (as it should be)-good for you. I wrote for DGreport for 2 years under the name 'Meat' precisely because I didn't want to wake up one morning and find some local malcontent standing in my driveway in his underwear, wanting to discuss some trivial post I'd written. When it comes to my well being or that of my family, I'll make that decision, not you.

Talk about BS, Jeffrey would apparently rid western civilization of all the magnifent essays and literature penned under an alternative identity. Yes indeed, let's clear the libraries and bookstores of Mark Twain, Benjamin Franklin, and many hundreds of others who wrote using a "pen name."

It's interesting that the current Geneva Patch headline story is about vandals and grafitti. In some respects some anonymous posters are no different than these same vandals. They have nothing to add to the discussion. Their contribution is just graffiti that takes away from the conversation instead of adding to it. It's best to just ignore these sorts of posts and look at the content. Anonymity doesn't make the comment any less worthy. Only the purpose of the comment determines its value and that's pretty easy to discern.

"That's the biggest bunch of BS I've ever read and I've read a lot of BS! I thought I had an ego.."
So, you've read allot of your own work??

I do understand where you are coming from, Jeff, as it's much easier to say nasty things when you are anonymous. I wonder how many people would actually say those things to someone's face - probably very few. Our social veneers still hopefully are somewhat intact.

However, I do have to agree with some of the dissenting opinions. No, I don't consider myself at all important. However, I am a business person, and there have been times where I did have something to contribute but held back because my name is attached to it. This limits civil discussion, I think.

Unfortunately, with the very divisive political climate these days, I wouldn't want to lose a customer because they had extremely different political viewpoints - or for that matter, social policy ideas - than mine. It's already happened once a long time ago.

Also, just google your name and see what comes up - any comment you've ever made. What if you are applying for a job position - do you want to ruin your chances, as mentioned above, because your employer vehemently disagrees with your opinion? It would and does happen everyday.
I don't want speech and opinions to be stifled by fear of retribution. But I do think we need to delete any comments that are purposely vengeful and don't contribute anything of value to the discussion at hand.

Good article!

Tony, You caught my little secret! In fact my true identity is His Holiness Wilhelm Dork of Ork High Priest of Planet Verisimilitude.

I started out commenting on this site using an alias. I did this for fear of backlash from someone who didn't agree with what I wrote. I didn't fear Jeff Ward showing up at my doorstep (or one of his minions); it was more about general attitudes and opinions of me that kept me from publicly articulating my every sentiment.

We live in a time that is extremely divisive. People tend to have a difficult time separating the way they treat you with your views, especially when they disagree.

As a result of switching to my real name, I keep most of the comments I want to make to myself. I have no problem sticking up for the Chamber publicly as I felt that was the right thing to do. However, when discussions on this site get political, I am guaranteed to piss off at least 50% of the readers. I also recognize that nothing I will say has the ability to reverse the entrenched viewpoints of those I oppose.

You seem to have an inability to put yourself in someone else’s shoes. Not everyone is an opinion columnist. In my business, when you have a heated debate with someone, it tends to damage the relationship, which discourages repeat business. It takes more courage to bite your tongue and nod your head in order to nurture the relationship than it does to lash out at disagreements.

The fact that you (Jeff Ward) have no regard for your public image doesn’t mean that others are cowardly for regarding theirs.

The Federalist Papers written in support of the proposed new Constitution, first began to appear on October 27, 1787, in response to anti-federalist essays which had begun to appear in New York papers in September of that year. The anti-federalists (those opposed to the new constitution) signed their essays “Cato” (see for instance the Institute currently devoted to conservative thinking) or “Brutus”. The far more famous Federalist Papers (85 in all) were always signed “Publius”; though they were written by three different persons: Alexander Hamilton (first Secretary of the Treasury), James Monroe (later President), and John Jay (later Chief Justice of the Supreme Court). These writers, both pro and con, elected to use pseudonyms rather than reveal their identities. I’m certainly pleased that the American people of that day did not choose the position taken by Mr. Ward when he declares that he will be “refusing to read any column by an unidentified author.”

How do you suggest determining whether the name someone signs up with is "real" or not? It's just not possible to do that perfectly, and if you come up with an approach that gets too burdensome you're going to completely lose your audience.

There have been some naive political suggestions about removing anonymity from the internet recently, to which I would point you to Bruce Schneier's blog (he's a leading expert on security) where he explains why that just isn't possible: http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2010/02/anonymity_and_t_3.html

Notice how the author is constantly trying to defend himself? No columnist worth his keystrokes is insecure.

Jeff:
Pithy, very pithy response. Sure explains everything: History is not worth reviewing because, I guess, human nature has changed so much. If a writer wrote with a pseudonym in 1787 he was considered a patriot; but if one now writes anonymously, “it is a form of cowardice”.

If 1787 isn’t enough, how about 1860, is that close enough to now for you? “In the quarter of a century before his presidency, Lincoln contributed hundreds of anonymous and pseudonymous pieces to the Springfield Illinois State Journal.” (Lincoln Reshapes the Presidency. Charles Hubbard, Mercer University Press, Macon, GA, 2003) Suppose old Abe was coward? Or maybe there's still another rule for the 1850s.

As a fellow journalist, it is interesting to follow this discussion. Anonymity has, in many an instance, allowed an argument to be made or facts reveled that were both risky to the writer, and necessary to the argument. The problem is that these days, more often than not, anonymity is used for responses that are laden with gossip, inaccuracy, resentment, personal agendas and innuendo. Add to that the unfortunate fact that after reading an article and the subsequent two dozen comments, many a reader no longer recalls whether the information they read was part of the news piece or part of the comment board. Like the talk shows on the news networks...it all melds together into "news." This is not such a big deal on a national level. Very few of the comments are being made by anyone who knows the politicians or celebrities, and its mostly just a way to sound off on a topic of interest. At the local level, however, the impact can be felt, and the effects of a thread that goes some thirty or 40 comments can be devastating to the subject, because allegations and particulars get very, very specific. I have to say I agree with Jeff. Commenting on the thread is not a necessity, its a luxury. If you can't claim it, don't comment. And if you really have something important to say and you need anonymity, contact the writer and ask for it. They can consider using you as an unnamed source after verifying what you have to say is fact.

If one uses real names, you will get much less real debate from many of us. That's because I'm a progressive that has lived in uber conservative towns. I have good relationships with my current neighbors, one comment can change all that.

The other reason is what recently happened with daily herald. I was on there as a constant commenter, then some went to a facebook page with their real names. Turns out one of the commenters on the other side of issues is someone I've known for years personally. This doesn't lead to good relationships.

The most heated debate I have seen on the Elmhurst Patch was regarding the situation at the Spring Inn on St. Patrick's day, and the completely different versions of events given by the police, and anonymous comments on the Patch by those who were in attendance. In fear of local retaliation, I don't think you would have seen the same response from those to disagreed with the the Police version of the story if they had to post their name.

Jeff: First, congratulations on starting a worthwhile debate. Your second paragraph is telling: even though you knew the comment was removed, you still wanted to know it. Some of your readers may feel the same way, too!

The crux of your argument is that people will be more reserved if they are required to use their real name. Jeff, some of your responses to my fellow commentors would be removed at other media sites as violating their Terms of Service. As a journalist, what are you trying to accomplish? Do you want to bring more readers to your site, or is it more important that you “win” your debate? Responding to comments and reiterating the same point again and again probably serves to stifle the debate. Why not step back and see what my fellow commentors contribute. Step in if the comments are getting off- topic or profane. Nurture the conversation, rather than suffocate it!

If verifying names/address information on Patch commentors is burdensome, why not be pragmatic and focus upon what is written, rather than who is writing it? If your readers tell you they would comment more with “screen names”, monitor the discussion, not their places of residence. I am not that important? Why is my name and address so important? The bottom line is this: Your media has a great, new opportunity. That opportunity is a two-way conversation with your readers via the comment section. Concentrate upon bringing more readers in, rather than filtering them out.

Tammy,

Sadly no! Though using real names generally tends to moderate the debate, my main point was the last line in the column. If you have to say something anonymously then it's not worth saying. Putting that point out there is my overriding goal.

Your last paragraph is interesting in that actually it proves how serious I am about what I write. You're right, I love bringing in readers, but I'm not willing to sacrifice a principal to do it.

As far as the debate, sometimes I wade into them and sometimes I don't. Like the Wheaton College column, I find this discussion particularly interesting. Considering the number of comments on this one, I don't think I'm squelching the debate at all. In fact, I'd say it's just the opposite.

Am I harder on folks like Mr. Cesare who have a similar voice? You bet! But, in general, my comments are no different than what I write in the columns.

As far as monitoring the conversation, I think you're right. That's what Patch generally does and they do it pretty well. But "screen names?" Uh uh!

Jeff

I use my name when I write my Patch pieces, as outlandish as they are. Granted, they are pretty safe and not controversial, but my name is my name. Same thing with my blog.

I think pen names have their place, but not in matters of local opinions. If a man or woman has an opinion strong enough to speak it, they should speak it proudly.

I don't know how Patch should handle anonymous names from a policy standpoint. However, watching the commenters who do not believe in what they are saying to use a real name, I just shake my head. Then, there are those who have no interest in Wheaton just pasting the same response all across Patchland using fake names. Then, there are the trolls who sense of well-being comes from riling others up. I have seen plenty of ad hominem attacks by those unwilling to wear their real identity.

Some of you using fake names are sincere, and converse online just as if we were sitting on my deck. Unfortunately, you are the minority.

I understand the concern about being found out by employers and all that. Then, don't say it. Is retaliation a concern? Maybe so, but hiding from it means we are squandering freedom. If we live like we are oppressed, we might as well be oppressed.

If merely getting site traffic is the goal, allow and encourage fake names. But, to develop genuine dialogue amongst people wanting to honestly engage a hard issue, encourage transparency.

While I use my real name, I don't mind people who use pseudonyms. Stick to the topic and no problem, fine. I've been in for enough blow back I understand why some simply don't want the hassle, but want to be heard. Not everyone is as fearless as you JW;

Jeff, I can imagine why some people might be afraid to sign their name. I review heavily on Amazon.com. One author was so upset at the very colorful negative review I gave his work, he sued me. Had I used a fake name, he might never have, as he would've needed to go through great lengths to find out who I was. Instead, he had his day in court. But, I also had mine.

I encourage any of you interested in freedom of speech online to Google my name and the word lawsuit. Read the court opinions and related legal analyses.

As I read some of the reasons here, I am saddened by the mix of fear and undue pride. Maybe, Jeff, we don't matter. I think, so long as we do not sign our name as broadly as John Hancock, we matter even less.

Yeah, there may be the odd occasion in which "real name held back by request" should be employed. Mostly, though, we overestimate ourselves and underestimate our neighbors.

Precisely. We live in a great community, far more open minded, freethinking, far beyond the simple stereotype of 'uber conservative'. Engagement with an issue is more than me pushing my views, but listening to others. If I hide behind a fake name, I am taking from others the opportunity to return volley to who I really am.

All this said, there are many times I have felt so, so strongly, I have wanted to use the name 'Inigo Montoya'. ;)

Funny how this cuts both ways. Politicians discredit the Patch because it "allows" anonymous comments and people on the Patch get worked up about politicians who anonymously comment. Everyone needs to get over it. A forum like the Patch is the modern day public square.

Like all public squares, identities of some speakers aren't always known. But anyone frequenting the public square with any regularity knows who the frequent speakers are, or at least learns enough to know whether to pay the comments any mind.

Rambling, ostentatious and/or anonymous fools in public squares are easily disregarded by others. So too are the truly anonymous (or unruly) commenters here. But I note that some of the most inane/ridiculous comments out there are those with first and last names readily attached.

The "anonymity = no credibility" rationale is little more than a convenient excuse for politicians to justify their lack of engagement and discredit the Patch and an excuse for others to get riled up about something else they can rant about with their names boldly attached.

I have no profile and no last name here (most privacy experts would support this), but it isn't hard to know whether or not my (or anyone else's) comments come from a place of sincere engagement or if they should be entirely disregarded as anonymous ranting. But suggesting all comments must have a first and last name associated with them to be credible is just absurd. Let the comments speak for themselves.

Jeff, first off, if your editors are having so much trouble moderating the comments then you need to find editors (or moderators) who know what they are doing. Unless you are steering the conversation to your own agenda then you need not delete anything that is not actionable in a court of law. If someone wants to be stupid then let them as long as they are not simultaneously libelous, pornographic or 'spammy'. You have no business editing comments for content otherwise. I've been in the moderator shoes and know how frustrating it is but if you keep your emotions and biases out of it, it's not that difficult.

Second, if you'd ever been targeted by one of the little Hitlers who entrench themselves in suburban government you would know why many of us prefer not to be easily identified. Try getting a building permit or even a fence replacement approved if the village manager, mayor or planning department is pissed at you for something you said at a board meeting. There is no such thing as free speech in suburban Chicago government and requiring "verifiable" names to comment here means you've lost a reader. I'm not here to make your job easier or stroke your ego. Sorry.

Mouse,

First let me be clear that I do not have the administrative ability to delete posts. Only Patch editors can do that.

As Anthony said, "If we live like we are oppressed, we might as well be oppressed." So your theory is to let these "little Hitlers" run rampant because it makes your life easier or because you're scared? Do you realize what you're saying about yourself?

Of course I've run into these folks and I've backed them down one by one - and I wasn't even a columnist at the time. And if a public official is abusing their power that's exactly when you should come to someone like me to balance the playing field. It's amazing how bullies quickly back down when you turn on the lights.

And Sorry mouse, it has nothing to do with my ego and everything to do with your hyper-inflated sense of self-importance. Losing some readers isn't always a bad thing.

Jeff

Jeff's "If you can't put your name on it, it's not worth saying," is probably one of the single, dumbest comments to be found anywhere on the internet. If that was true, much of civilization's greatest spiritual, political, literary and philosophical writings would need to be viewed as a step below "Mad Magazine"...

The greatest absurdity is Jeff's insistence on seeing the entire multidimensional issue through a single obstinate lens when this issue, like most, simply doesn't exist in the vacuum he needs to support his arrogance.

"If you can't put your name on it, its not worth saying" just isn't true. And saying it repeatedly doesn't make it so. Any reasonable treatment of the issue involves a myriad of legitimate reasons people choose not to put their full names on posts. Read the comments above and the other articles on the issues linked to in some of the comments for a more reasonable and realistic treatment of the issue.

Instead of dealing with facts, realities and nuance, all supported by reality, Jeff trollishly plays tellingly obstinate defense by dismissing each legitimate alternate perspective offered with a derivation of "sorry, you're wrong/a coward/etc." Its intellectual isolationism of the worst kind. Its akin to boiling all foreign policy down to "you're either with us or against us" or "this is good vs. evil" without any regard for the vast realities betrayed by such oversimplification.

Jeff's approach to the issue is nothing short of pathetic. If his approach was "This is just one/my perspective and how I choose to see it and no amount of reasonable difference of opinion can convince me otherwise" it would be fine. But he repeatedly insists that his view is the only view. Or at least the only legitimate one. And he is flatly wrong. A sad excuse for journalism.

Scott,

I've stuck to my point because I have yet to hear anything even approaching a reasonable explanation for justifying Internet anonymity is this day and age.

Like your post, all I'm hearing is whiny excuses for why folks with overinflated egos think they should be able to get away with saying some anonymously just because they feel like they should be able to.

We don't live in a totalitarian regime and this isn't 1776 when you could be shot for saying something radical. Although I might point out that we're an independent country because of those folks that stood up, said what had to be said and risked the consequences.

Scott, if it were up to you and many others here, we'd still be a British colony.

If you could step out of your ego induced stupor for even one second (which I doubt), you'd understand there are certain truths in life that will continue to be the truth whether you, I or anyone else believes them. You don't just decide to kill someone walking down the street, you don't take your neighbor's stuff, and it's best to treat others like you want to be treated.

It's funny that the three journalists who've responded to this column completely agree with me. We're the ones that take the real risks.

I really don't care if you believe it, but the truth is, Issuing a post like yours with the moniker "Scott C." is like flipping someone off and running and hiding behind your girlfriend.

This will be my last response to you.

Jeff

Exactly who is the author of Genesis and Revelations, Beowulf and the Magna Carta? I trust Jeff also, long ago, removed from his home those worthless writings by Mother Hubbard and Dr. Seuss, and urged all the local libraries and bookstores to do the same. I don't think even Jeff believes much of the nonsense he writes, but he has such a need to see his words in print, he will say most anything to get attention. (If there is some lingering problem from the first grade, professional help is available...)

Jeff, did you bother to read the comments by Elaine, who actually worked for a legitimate newspaper as a very successful and popular columnist?

Dan,

Another sad analogy that just doesn't work. Yes! I have pointed out that a column was satirical when people don't get it. Does anyone really think I meant it when I said I wanted to put little children in cages at Trader Joe's? OK! That one might be true. But to call that hiding is a bigger stretch than Sarah Palin's version of Paul Revere's ride.

Can I dish it out? You bet! Can I also take it? Yes sir! But the difference between you and me is you know exactly who I am. I'm not hiding behind anything.

I wish I could say the same thing about you.

Jeff

Hey Jeff, aren't you the guy who loudly proclaimed the virtue of your unusual consistency ?(Even though many wise men have suggested it's more a sign of a "small mind.") Then, assuming you can recognize the obvious fact that many hugely important writings in literature, politics, religion, etc. did not disclose the author's identity, aren't you inconsistent in claiming the same lack of identity on a public forum blog posting makes those opinions not worth reading??

William,

Generally I don't answer you because you're generally an ... But since you've toned it down a bit:

1. That was then, but this is now. You have to go back centuries for your examples. There's no name attached to Beowulf because it was passed down by a spoken tradition. There's no longer much of a chance that the pope will excommunicate you for writing about the Earth orbiting the sun.

2. To compare what you and others say here to the folks who, even anonymously, risked their lives by challenging a monolithic and overarching status quo (like the pope), boggles the mind. There's no comparison. It's an utterly absurd reach.

In this time, on this Internet, in this country, on a response to something as trivial as one of my columns, there is absolutely no excuse for not using your real name.

Jeff

Ah yes, Jeff, dismiss the historically relevant examples as simply no longer applicable. Then just brazenly ignore modern day reality to suit your needs. The integrity of Jeff's approach becomes ever more apparent the more he talks...and man he loves to talk. Defensive much Jeff? Think that's at all telling? Maybe? Just a little even? Nope...its everyone else who is crazy and you are the only one who can possibly be right. You're a psychologists dream!

Again, in the world we live, "in this time, on this internet, in this country," there are people who completely legitimately don't want a simple google of their first and last name to reveal to their boss that they commented on a blog during work hours, or to their HR Department that they were online having a great exchange on an issue important to them on a day they called in sick, or have a prospective employer, client or colleague see their passion about a local community issue irrelevant to that relationship but subjecting them to judgement nonetheless. These are just a couple examples of REALITY...in this time, on this internet, in this country, that you dismiss because as legitimate as it is, it doesn't mesh with your insular and myopic view.

Go ahead and reply, and prove my point that the comments matter far more than the name. Or don't, and squirm in your inability to keep your tourettes like narrative running. Kinda sucks when you unnecessarily back yourself into a ridiculous corner, doesn't it?

Dan,

That's an excellent point. One of my good friends calls me a high functioning introvert and she's dead on.

But what I finally discovered is, introversion, or shyness, is generally a form of conceit. It was in my late twenties that I finally realized people really weren't all that concerned with me. I'm just not that important. And that spontaneous satori freed me from worrying about what other were thinking and, thus, the high functioning part.

And I say if I can get over it, then anyone can!

Jeff

Jeff:
What if I was a questioning Muslim who wanted to share my uncertainties or reveal disquieting information about the goings on at my mosque? If I use my real name I run the risk of getting my throat cut.

The bottom line here, despite whatever anyone believes, is that the use of an alias is a violation of the terms of use on Patch. The relevant policy as shown under registration is "Patch believes in transparency, and we ask that all your registration information be truthful. You may not use any aliases or other means to mask your true identity."

Regardless of whether or not you agree that this is a good policy, you agreed to abide by it when you registered your Patch account. Commenting on Patch is not a Constitutional right. It is a privilege that Patch grants you when you register. Your registration and use of Patch has very specific terms of use. When you use an alias, regardless of however you justify it, you are still choosing to disregard the rules you agreed to abide by. That decision reflects badly on your character and other readers may in fact judge you as a person who feels the rules are for everybody else except you.

Jeff, Sorry I've been busy today with more important things than responding to your on-going, insistence that "comments without an identity are not worth reading." I guess you are now saying you had communication problems despite claiming to be a professional communicator, and that what you really meant was that until recently in human history, it made perfect sense for individuals to not always disclose their identities, but that has all now changed due to technological developments of the last few years. I guess you have convinced yourself of that, but certainly not the majority of participants on this thread. Maybe you are a bit confused about the realities of risk facing many participants on blogs such as this, or maybe you are just the obvious a__ here.

What we have here is another of Jeff's frequent backtracks and re-wordings when his invalid logic is exposed. I guess he has gone from the extreme and clearly invalid general "If you're afraid to put your name on it, it's not worth reading" to now just applying that nonsense to specific postings on Patch directed at him. That's Ok Jeffrey, as already noted, life is not consistent despite your belief to the contrary. The bigger problem, however, is not your flawed and ever-shifting vision of reality, which really has no significance beyond entertainment value (like Jersey Shore) to most of us, but rather the fact that participating in any of your overly dramatic threads is equivalent to being splashed by a large puddle of fetid, muddy water as opposed to a cleansing wash of insight and wisdom we hope to find on a good public forum blog. I, for one, no longer find this activity to be worthwhile, so will be exiting this arena of rhetorical masturbation. However, I trust you have plenty of other participants to sling your unprofessional ---- at.

I'm going to miss you William.

Does anyone find it odd that Jeff appears to argue the same point differently in two articles published the same week? On the Patch, he argues that if you aren’t willing to provide your real name then don’t say anything. In his article, published this week in the Beacon News, he argues that reporters have the right to not reveal the names of their sources. While not the exact same situations, they both deal with the right to speak without your name being used.

Personally, when I speak at public meetings, respond to newspaper or opinion articles, I always identify myself. At the same time, as long as the comment is appropriate and on topic, I don’t have a problem with pseudo names.

Joe,

Some that have commented that they run local businesses and expressing their opinion could endanger their source of livelihood. I tried to point out that everything isn't as cut and dried as everyone would like it to be. That is why they call it an opinion. You feel that a source has the right to maintain his/her anonymity, while others hold the opinion that if it worth saying then you should be willing to put you name on it. There may be times when a source and an "internet commentator" should have the same rights. Gotta remember the gray areas.

Bob,

You're losing it!

The Beacon News column argued that journalists should not have to turn over their interview notes. The DeKalb State's Attorney knows exactly who the two reporters interviewed - they even know what was said - there's no anonymity issue anywhere within sight.

Journalists need to be able to get their story out without fear of big brother watching their every move.

What I said here is people commenting on an Internet news sites should use their real name. Your comparison is beyond apples and oranges.

Jeff

Jeff

In your opinion!

I've found that those who use fake names usually make comments that are as bogus as the names used.

At the risk of prolonging this thread well beyond its natural life, here's a pointer to another related techdirt article just published: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110926/16014916101/trolls-dont-need-to-be-anonymous-not-all-anonymous-people-are-trolls.shtml — if you're going to respond though, I'd suggest doing it at techdirt (they let you do so anonymously if you want...)

I particularly like the Oscar Wilde quote in one of the comments: “Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.”

Here we have a published Journalist, telling us anonymity makes an authors statement worthless. But...Journalists will go to jail to defend the anonymity of their sources. Me thinks there is a goose and gander imbalance here; a double standard? Come on Jeff, the most famous anonymous source ever was 'Deep Throat'. No wonder you do this for free. Theodore Clarence Bartkowski

Jim Sherer> I dont' know about that assumption. Show me some hard numbers that this site costs the parent company exorbitant amounts of money per day. If anything, it's the opposite, since you can reach more readers on the cheap online via various mobile devices. Ad revenue simply will no longer support the old print newspaper model. Advertising is moving online because it is the better value in many cases than print.

Jim, I think our 3,000,000 readers wouldn't agree with you. If you don't like Patch, stick to Fox News. By the way, I hope you're not Mark's brother.

Pretty sure that the Patch will be folded up by AOL in due time. I'm surprised to see the defensive comments by Jeff, that tells me a lot. Jim Hankes, please deduct one more reader from your numbers. If you get rid of Jeff I will return.

My attitude is fine mouse, thank you. Duncan, thank you for leaving. Jeff, keep ip the good work. See everyone tomorrow in Geneva at the Patch tent .

Hankes is listed as the ad manager for Patch. Wonderful attitude, Jimbo. Where did you get the idea that insulting the readers is a way to generate revenue? And what do you mean "stick to Fox News?" If we don't agree with the blowhard Ward we must be one of "them?" A buddy of mine has a client considering a major ad buy on Patch...I'll be sure he sees your comments.

Who did I insult? You are insulting a columnist. If your buddy wants to reach a very large and growing group of residents with spending power, then Patch is a good option for his business. Tell him to come meet me 2mortow morning.

Really? Well the screen I see is advertising the Kane County Fair...that ended July 24. And the home pages often "highlight" businesses that are closed. Yep. That's some real effective marketing there, Jim

Glad to see you are a frequent visitor, keep up the good work. Why are u now insulting me when I have nothing to do with what u r commenting about?

Supreme Court: "Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority... It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation—and their ideas from suppression-at the hand of an intolerant society."

Jeff Ward is an entertaining opinion columnist with many devoted followers. Not sure why people flip out over his comments?

As the Supreme Court wrote in McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission:

"An author is generally free to decide whether or not to disclose his or her true identity. The decision in favor of anonymity may be motivated by fear of economic or official retaliation, by concern about social ostracism, or merely by a desire to preserve as much of one's privacy as possible. Whatever the motivation may be, . . . the interest in having anonymous works enter the marketplace of ideas unquestionably outweighs any public interest in requiring disclosure as a condition of entry. Accordingly, an author's decision to remain anonymous, like other decisions concerning omissions or additions to the content of a publication, is an aspect of the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment."

I would suggest that anyone who wishes to have Patch reconsider its terms of use, which do not allow anonymous user registration, visit the parent site to view these terms at http://www.patch.com/terms and then email the Patch team at support@patch.com if they want Patch to change its policy. Arguing about whether or not anonymous comments should be allowed completely ignores the fact that this is Patch policy. If you want that policy changed officially, rather than circumventing it, then perhaps you need to petition the Patch management directly, And I would recommend using your real name and contact information when you do so if you want to be taken seriously.

I'm sure that Patch management has given the terms of use a lot of thought and if you look at the Acceptable Use section you will see lists of a lot of the type of behavior that Patch prohibits on this site. Anonymity often enables some of this prohibited behavior because human beings are capable of surrendering to their worst instincts when they feel that no one will recognize them. Mob behavior is one example of how social order breaks down when one has expectations of anonymity as part of a large crowd. If a person knows they will be held accountable for their words and actions, then he or she is more likely to exercise good judgment and restraint.

My energy will be better spend sending a complaint letter to AOL and asking them to look into the combative, childish and bizarre behavior of Jim and Jeff. I get the opinion part, but the reckless responses from each of them warrant a reaction. Maybe AOL should change the name of this local thing to Sour Patch...And we need to put all this stuff on 4chan as a FYI to that community, which directly opposes the opinion expressed by Jeff.

Banning unsigned or anonymous online comments undermines the media's role as a forum for debate. People with serious opinions often need anonymity to exercise their most basic democratic rights: to dissent, to criticize, to advocate and to debate controversies.

If journalists try to silence those with unpopular opinions by banning anonymous comments online, they also will silence the poor, the vulnerable and the dispossessed.

Anonymity is the one true cultural equalizer, and that it is what the First Amendment was meant to protect all along.

Abusive, defamatory, intimidating, threatening type comments (anonymous or not) should, of course, be edited.

The unfortunate theme among the proponents of anonymity in this thread is that people fear the consequences of speaking their mind. They fear retribution for expressing their opinion. I understand the need for anonymity for whistleblowers and informants who are reporting criminal wrong-doing. But it's truly sad that people do not feel they can express their opinions openly and honestly without fear.If that is the case then we might as well be living in a police state. We have to respect each other and each other's opinions whether we agree with those opinions or not. And we all need to be tolerant of diverse opinions. I know a lot of people remain silent for the sake of friendship and getting along, but friendship without mutual respect is not friendship at all and getting along is never really worth the frustration of suppressing one's thoughts throughout a relationship. Friends tolerate differences of opinion. In fact, all decent people tolerate differences in opinion, taste, and social background. Anonymity was never meant to be a FIrst Amendment right. The First Amendment, in fact the entire Constitution, is about empowering people so they no longer needed to live in fear of speaking their mind. Far from being a cultural equalizer, anonymity is surrender to the forces that sought to suppress those rights. But I do sympathize with those who feel trapped in situations where they feel they can't speak freely.

Good grief, Charlie Brown. Why is it that the likes of Terry, Jim and Jeff are so utterly clueless (or at least reluctant to address) the far more reality-based considerations around this issue? It isn't just "you're a coward" vs. "first amendment" for crying out loud. Reality is in between (and quite reasonable) for the vast majority.

At this very moment, there is an article on the Patch by Lorrene Kennard about your online identity and how multiple sites aggregate information about you that it sweeps the internet to find. And I quote: "these sites can also pull together places where you have been mentioned and your recent posts to blogs."

The REALITY (supported by most privacy expert) is that people quite reasonably prefer not to have every opinion they've offered, position they've staked, or every name they may have called or been called by Jeff Ward in the heat of exchange accessible with a quick google search.

People reasonably might not want their boss/potential boss, friend, enemy, neighbor, or anyone else googling their name to read every last word they've posted. Or maybe they don't want the boss/HR Dept./colleagues to know they were on a blog during work hours or on a day they called in sick.

These, and others, are real considerations. They may not apply to you. You might disagree. Fine. But it doesn't mean they aren't part of reality...that you're ignoring.

http://downersgrove.patch.com/blog_posts/have-you-checked-your-online-profile-lately

Wow, Jeff...wow.
Perhaps the best "PS" to this particular "piece" is seeing how freely you're engaging with so many who do not have a last name included with their comments to your most recent article.
http://downersgrove.patch.com/articles/jeff-ward-occupy-the-western-suburbs
I've seen no better example of the hypocrisy you are so often accused of in your engagement here on the Patch than this.
Proof. In. Pudding.

Agreed, Scott. Look at any of the recent "columns" and you'll notice nothing but odd names or just initials on the submissions. Anonymous posters don't really seem to bother Mr. Ego unless they disagree with him. And also note that for those who disagree and use their full names, Ward will launch a personal attack. As he did with one man who posted a comment...and Ward attacked him because the guy's MOTHER held a position with a Geneva organization. Ward is nothing more than a schoolyard bully that the "editor" here, Rick Nagel, is in awe of.

You're generous to call it a "column" even with quotes. I won't even concede it is an "opinion" piece. Most opinion pieces (outside of tabloids) don't involve attacking others who offer their own opinions. Poor Jeff seems to be unable to grasp that the nature of an opinion piece will, in turn, prompt others to share their opinions and that fostering the interesting dialogue that results from diversity of opinions is far more noble a goal (for the columnist AND the publication in/on which it appears) than simply telling every person with a differing opinion that they are just wrong and then engaging in trollish bullying behavior as he insists that there is only one correct opinion...his.

If, in fact, Patch editors don't see such behavior as problematic, they're either in over their heads with Jeff or believe that getting numbers through any means to woo advertisers is worth any cost of the publication's reputation and quality. If the former is the case, they should decide what kind of publication they want the Patch to be, man up, and call Jeff out when he treats readers like children. If the latter is the case they should be reminded that is the business model of tabloids. If they're ok with that, it might be time to find new editors.

Funny thing is that I tend to agree with Jeff's position on issues more often then not (once you cut through the BS to get to his actual positions). I just find his manner of engaging with others to be petty and pathetic.

Simply put, you can blame the lawyers for the reams of legislation whereby you can be sued or arrested for just making a mean gesture to an individual. That is why few will ever again be placed in any compromising situation. The written word, the spoken word, the gesture. The last bastion of freedom you had is gone. Most will live underground. How depressing and regressive a society. All the political correctness makes my head spin.