Back in 1993, a New Yorker cartoon by Peter Steiner showed two hounds at a computer, one explaining to the other, "On the internet, nobody knows you’re a dog."  So true - unless, of course, you tell them. But what does the easy anonymity of internet communications mean as the web becomes the virtual agora of democracy and the repository of the world’s knowledge?

I’ve read many complaints about it on sites and list-serves, and I’ve had a few qualms about it myself. I value transparency and accountability as foundations for democratic discussion; town meeting, like the original Greek democratic agora, is about physical presence. But I value freedom of speech, too. Engraved over the Boston Public Library are these words: "THE COMMONWEALTH REQUIRES THE EDUCATION OF THE PEOPLE AS A SAFEGUARD OF LIBERTY AND ORDER." Liberty and order - the complementary requirements of civilization.

The good news about net anonymity, of course, is that people can speak freely without retribution. The bad news: people can say anything without accountability.

Fear of repercussions from family, friends or neighbors, from the boss or other employees, and from politically powerful individuals are among the understandable reasons people hide their identity to participate freely in internet discussion. There are many broadly accepted identity shields: authors’ pen names, voters’ secret ballots, journalists’ protection of sources, unsigned newspaper queries to Dear Whoever, workplace suggestion boxes, fraud hot-lines, social service support lines - and remember women writing under men’s names to get their work published? It’s valuable to encourage the airing of controversial points of view to foster open-minded discussion; as the saying goes, a good idea is first ridiculed, then vehemently opposed, then accepted as self-evident.

Think about the uses of masks in real life. Aside from Halloween, is anyone wearing a mask likely to be doing something good? Probably nothing to be proud of, and often downright illegal. But then, many pop-culture superheroes assume their powers when they don their disguises, and use their "everyday" appearance as the mask, so they can function in a way that lets them learn where their help is needed.

Of course, freedom of expression can be abused. Even the Constitution isn’t interpreted to allow shouting fire in a crowded theater. Internet writers often abuse their cover, posting scathing, even vulgar, statements they’d never utter if identified - statements which may be factually false, or simply so crude as to reflect badly on them.

But the antidote to objectionable free speech is, as in "real life," more free speech. The ACLU can morally advocate to protect Nazi marches, because anti-Nazis are free to demonstrate in opposition. And there are many ever-changing, gray areas in defining the "good guys" who deserve free-speech protection.

There are web antidotes as well. Since the offending messages are out in the public domain, the victim has the option to reply and rebut and even to shame. But the victim has to know it’s there to do that. In my web searches, I’ve stumbled upon my name on sites where my positions and actions are wildly misrepresented. I am willing to be hated and reviled for what I believe, and I never disguise my identity; but since my goal is to share my information and views with others, this misrepresentation is a significant subversion of my work. And yet, I can’t patrol the internet searching for wrongs to be righted in the characterization of my statements. And even if I do, will I reach the same people who read the mistaken postings, now buried in the site’s archives or gone altogether? It’s a very limited recourse, and accountability is elusive.

On the other hand, by-lined newspaper reporters often misstate my comments inadvertently, or make factual reporting errors; my infrequent letters of correction to the editor are seldom printed and probably never read. Indeed - the internet becomes the antidote, providing a way to get these corrections to the public (or such public as stumbles upon them) when the papers don’t.

Anonymity is also costly to the speaker in compromised credibility. Unclaimed statements should be discounted by the reader: If the poster won’t stand behind his words, we might give them less credence. We all know that "facts" can be manipulated and presented selectively. When we know who’s speaking, we know how to weigh the words: does the speaker have a vested interest, or is s/he peddling self-serving propaganda? Does s/he have factual credibility, or just saying what’s expedient? But our culture honors the written word; people tend to believe what they read. I’ve seen high school students writing papers using solely internet research, citing the "facts" in the first few entries on the screen, without checking the source for conflicts or credentials; they don’t even record their references, so unaware are they of the importance of the source. What will happen when newspapers become news-sites, and the moral authority and legitimacy of the web are further reinforced?

Anonymously conducted illegal internet activities, such as financial fraud and child abuse, must, of course, be pursued by enforcement authorities, who have to deal with today’s technology as they did to the cut-and-paste hold-up note and the get-away car. Sometimes a site will have to be closed, or special tracking for identity is needed. And for some types of net-crime, the net offers like solutions, e.g., letting officers pose as potential victims to engage the criminals.

But the everyday, simply annoying bad netiquette, like other socially unacceptable behavior, will have to be reined in by peer pressure and e-shunning as suit the offense. On net (pun intended), I’d trust that process, flawed as it is, over giving any individual, group or agency the authority to define free speech and privacy. The abuse of that kind of power, all too easy as we’ve seen on the federal level, would fundamentally threaten a democratic society.

Shirley Kressel

Published in the South End News

*Title of song by “The Who”