I’ve always been opposed to anonymity, especially on the Internet. It has seemed to me to be cowardly. If you have something to say, say it openly and proudly and take responsibility for it. That’s part of what it means to be an adult.
I now think that there is a relevant distinction to be made. Offensive anonymity is motivated by a desire to abuse others. The abuse can take any of a number of forms, from ridicule to vilification to disclosure of private information to attempts to get someone fired. The abuser wishes to harm others without being held responsible for doing so.
Defensive anonymity is motivated by a desire to avoid being abused. In recent months, we have seen many cases in which something someone said online has been used as a basis for getting that person reprimanded, censured, punished, or even fired from a job. To avoid these adverse outcomes, one might hide one’s identity from the public while speaking online. The speaker wishes to express his or her views without being assailed by the mob. That is not cowardice; it is respectable self-protection.
Just as there is a morally relevant difference between attacking someone physically and defending oneself from physical attack, even if the bodily movements are the same, there is a morally relevant difference between abusing someone behind a cloak of anonymity and trying to avoid being abused by hiding one’s identity. Offensive anonymity is despicable; defensive anonymity is defensible. The difference lies in the motive.
What say you? Is the distinction I have drawn morally relevant? Am I carving things in the right place?
