Editor's desk: Should we require names when printing blog posts?

I see in the paper (why not on the blog?) that you've decided to start printing only comments with real names on them. The problem with this is that A) your software doesn't allow users to change their names, I will forever be "rubyji" unless I start a new account, and B) you have no way of knowing whether the full name I give is really mine. What if I start signing my posts "John Kramer" or "Jessie Beard?" The only real thing you have verified is my e-mail address, which may or may not hint at my identity.

= Ruby Sinreich

I can understand why some people don't use their names. Will, Fred, and I all benefit from being essentially self employed or employed by companies who aren't engaging in particularly controversial business. And I know, because of the work I do, that there are retaliatory employers out there. Some of them are pretty ruthless about getting rid of people who stir the pot or have strong opinions that aren't in line with the company line.

But one should always consider the source when deciding how seriously to take a comment, and an anonymous source just doesn't carry a lot of weight with me and probably not with many others either.

I agree with Will's comment above about selecting comments for the print edition and have to respectfully disagree with my friend Fred. Just be sure they are clearly identified as blog comments, and not put in the letters or opinions section, which I do think should have more accountability.

Does the unattributed "comment" "“These are the times that try men’s souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph.” mean any less because its author was anonymous or do the words stand on their own?

Is it possible, as I suggest, that an anonymous comment made on a 'blog - even one with few posters - has value in and of itself? Further, isn't editorial discretion a decent filter in giving comments wider readership? Promoting comments to a wider readership has value, as Mark noted, and surely, as I said, we can depend on folks to assess the quality based on a number of factors - one of which is if they know whom is posting.

My perspective is somewhat colored because I have had staff over the years alert me off to problems within our local government. Several feared retribution if their opinions went public. In following up, I always vetted the information independently by following the facts. Giving voice to their criticism in a wider venue, like the Chapel Hill News, certainly has more value than "tipping" this citizen.

Finally, as probably most folks on this forum know, being truly anonymous on the Internet is a tough nut to crack. Certainly harder these days with sweeping use of illegal wiretapping and the blunderbuss Patriot Act.

Encouraging some level of dissenting discourse, especially in a community that often beats its chest in celebrating its freedoms, should be welcomed. If the fig leaf of anonymity is the price for that dissent, then so be it.

Anyone who has read Fred Black's comments on the many places where they have appeared in the past few years will probably wonder who is paying Fred to be so active and why is Fred so determined that anonymous posters be identified.

Fred is either a very civic minded person with a lot of time on his hands or a PR flack for someone. He should reveal who is paying him.

When you read his comments, they are not all that progressive either.

CitizenWill's comment is well-taken. We are not discussing here our leftist (of the time) Founding Fathers expressing radical notions of freedom from the Crown of England, though, "crimes" for which they would have hanged. We are here discussing whether citizens are willing to stand for their opinions, despite the powerful and wealthy interests who have gutted First Amendment, Fourth Amendment, and (statutory) whistleblower protections. Anonymous posts -- and blogs themselves -- are inherently incredible in political and legal discourse. Only identifiable persons expressing facts can affect change. Otherwise, faceless typists are simply whistling into the wind. If we as a people are serious about taking our Republic from the private interests whose profits we threaten with change -- perhaps the Orange County School Board is one of those interests, I do not know -- then we need actual people taking actual stands with identified comments. Making faceless comments is effectively the same as screaming at one's television, in the closed space of one's own home. With that said, though -- and having paid terrible prices for publicly standing on my comments and beliefs -- I submit real name and city and State of submitters is plenty for public comment. Providing home street addresses does nothing to enhance comments, it only jeopardizes physical security for those willing to fight against wealthy, and sometimes violent, interests deeply vested in the profit they get from the World as it is. Jay Hurst, Chapel Hill

the difference is you (the editors of the newspaper) control which letters to the editor you choose to publish, whereas anyone can comment on a blog post.

with blog posts your only recourse is to delete them, anonymous or signed.

it's a legitimate way to gain opinions on all sides without people fearing retribution for comments they may make. sure you have to take the good with the bad, but in this case, as with many internet anonymity cases, the good heavily outweigh the bad

Since you select the content that migrates from OrangeChat to the print edition, I say no, don't require full names or addresses. You are using your editorial discretion on what content is pertinent to the discussion by making this decision with the added bonus of not censoring the full discussion online (as silly as it may become).

 Anonymity is not about cowardice, as anyone that has read Publius' Federalist Papers might recall. Yes, you court potential trouble but the reward - greater access to the community's unfettered opinions - is well worth the risk. I hope the Chapel Hill News maintains their precedent of inviting the greatest possible dialog on the issues before our community by continuing to allow anonymous content.
CitizenWill aka WillR