Transparency, Anonymity, and Moral Courage

Anonymous

Sun, 06/27/2010 - 01:52

Disclosure

In
<a href="http://www.cityethics.org/content/harassment-and-intimidation-governmen…
recent
blog post on Maricopa County</a>, I referred to the problem of
harassment and intimidation by government officials against other
government
officials and employees. I have also referred in the past to the even
more
serious problem of harassment, intimidation, and ad hominem attacks by
government
officials against citizens. There is a new sort of fear in politics,
the fear
of disclosure of political beliefs, and the harassment and intimidation
(usually anonymous) that this can lead to. The occasion for
consideration of
this sort of harassment is the Supreme Court's decision on Friday, <a href="http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/09-559.pdf">Doe v.
Reed</a>,
concerning disclosure of the names of those who signed the Washington
state
petition for a referendum on the rights of same-sex domestic partners.

Dalia Lithwick has <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2257500/">an
excellent
piece in Slate</a> about this issue. 
 
The issue was also raised with respect to televising a court case
involving
Proposition 8 in California, because witnesses in favor of the
proposition were
afraid of harassment, professional retaliation, and death threats.
Their
argument was accepted in a 5-4 U.S. Supreme Court decision, despite the
fact
that, as Justice Breyer pointed out, these witnesses had already
appeared on TV
and internet broadcasts related to the topic. 
 
Doe v. Reed 
The court in Doe v. Reed balanced the first amendment rights of those
signing
the petition against the various governmental interests involved in
transparency. Only two justices in a very split case (opinion-wise,
that is; it
was an 8-1 split on the basic decision) mentioned the right of privacy,
Alito
concurring and Thomas dissenting. 
 
The plurality decision written by Chief Justice Roberts refers to the
famous
case of <a href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0424_0001_ZS.ht…
v.
Valeo</a>, 424 U. S. 1, 74 (1976): "we have explained that those
resisting disclosure can prevail under the First Amendment if they can
show 'a
reasonable probability that the compelled disclosure [of personal
information]
will subject them to threats, harassment, or reprisals from either
Government
officials or private parties.'" The "personal information" in
that case was the names of contributors to a party. 
 
Transparency vs. Anonymity 
The ironic fact central to the current debate is that in a case that
opts for
disclosure (transparency) the biggest problem is the anonymity (the
lack of
transparency) of harassment on the internet and harassment following on
disclosure of information on the internet. Yes, in the old days, people
could
have gotten hold of the names of people who signed a petition or gave
to a
candidate they didn't like, and used that information to make harassing
calls.
But in the internet era, such anonymous harassment is far easier and
therefore
far more common. 
 
Moral Courage 
Justice Scalia said in the oral argument for Doe v. Reed, "you can't
run a
democracy this way, with everybody being afraid of having his
political positions
known." And in his concurring decision, he wrote, "There are laws
against threats and intimidation; and harsh criticism, short of
unlawful
action, is a price our people have traditionally been willing to pay
for
self-governance. Requiring people to stand up in public for their
political
acts fosters civic courage, without which democracy is doomed. For my
part, I
do not look forward to a society which, thanks to the Supreme Court,
campaigns
anonymously (McIntyre) and even exercises the direct democracy of
initiative
and referendum hidden from public scrutiny and protected from the
accountability of criticism. This does not resemble the Home of the
Brave." 
 
No other justice used the word "courage" in his or her opinion, but
that really is what it comes down to. A world where political
participation is
anonymous is very much like the world of high finance: few act
ethically,
individuals don't take risks, and the whole society loses. 
 
Courage is at the center of ethical conduct. <a href="http://www.cityethics.org/node/259">As I wrote in a review</a>
of
Rushworth Kidder's book Moral Courage, "Moral courage's principal
purpose
is to take values from the theoretical to the practical, from thought
to
action. Without moral courage, an official will not act on his or her
values." 
 
At the heart of much unethical conduct by government officials is the
lack of
moral courage of individuals in power as well as of individuals afraid
to speak
truth to power. 
 
Standing Up to the Fear of Retaliation 
Anonymous voting is important, but anonymous contributing, petition
signing,
and public commenting are far more problematic. 
 
Yes, there are some people who will not give to a candidate opposing an
incumbent, or to an opposition party, because they are afraid of the
consequences. But it is exactly this fear that is the principal reason
why they
should work hard to get rid of the incumbent. If people are afraid of
contributing to any candidate (or afraid of failing to contribute to
the
incumbent), something is seriously wrong, and everyone should know
about it.
Think what effect on an election there would be if a hundred people
afraid to
oppose an incumbent took out an ad or signed an open letter stating the
fact
that their city had an ethical environment characterized by such
intimidation! 
 
We can't let anyone intimidate us into silence. If those with a view
about an
issue resort to harassment, it must be emphasized that they are
effectively
admitting that they can't make a reasonable argument and that they are
people
without sufficient ethics to be respected. 
 
But to assume that there will be harassment, that it will undermine our
democracy, and that nothing can be done about it, is to give up, to
show not
only a lack of moral courage, but also a lack of appreciation of the
strength
of our democracy and of our will to preserve it in the face of
anonymous
harassment. 
 
The best thing that can be done about anonymous harassment and nasty
online
writing is for everyone who believes it's wrong to stand up to it, to
mock it,
and to make it clear that it undermines an argument and that responses
to it
will not be made. In short, delegitimize it. Every person who fails to
do this
is effectively letting intimidation win the battle for control of our
democracy. The way to preserve open democratic participation is to
practice it. 
 
I had a blog dealing with my town government, which was effectively
taken over
by nasty anonymous commenters. I did not want to discriminate against
those who
disagreed with my view and personally (usually falsely) attacked me,
and that
was a mistake. From the beginning, I should have insisted that every
comment be
signed or it wouldn't be published. I would certainly do that here if
anonymous
attacks became a problem. 
 
I understand the argument that some people resort to anonymity because
they are
afraid of retaliation. But they are only afraid of retaliation because
they and
millions of others remain silent about their fear. To go anonymous is
not the
answer, and certainly to harass and to viciously and often falsely
attack
others is certainly not acceptable no matter how much fear there might
be.

Search

Transparency, Anonymity, and Moral Courage

Tags

Share This Page