Dave,

This is a really tough question. I come from the newspaper world where signatures are required on every letter to the editor.

But as the publisher of a web site for internal communicators, I am more interested in robust debate than holding readers to a strict identity clause.

And, as all of your readers know, many communicators can't visit social and professional networking sites much less comment on them.

In my heart of hearts, I agree with the sentiment expressed by Mary above. In a perfect world, communicators could find another job if they weren't free to express their opinions openly at their current one.

Unfortunately, most people don't have those options. Maybe they can't move; perhaps the local job market offers no alternative.

Let's continue to debate this issue. Ragan.com is new. There are many editorial policies under review. This is one of them.

Mark Ragan
CEO
Ragan Communications

I also applaud Mary’s bravado, and share a similar outlook on blogging. I never hold back on a blog. I speak my mind and for that simple reason I have literally tens upon tens of subscribers to my weekly musings.

However, I’m also not naïve. I realize I’m in a unique position and work for a unique company. I also know that every word I post out to the pervasive intertubes could quite possibly one day come back and bite me in my flat non-existent ass.

Most followers of internet lore all know the story of Dooce. Dooce (an online handle) was cut loose from her employment coil because of her negative words about her job. Now, while she was specifically lambasting her company, employers did take note of this trend and started to just look at what people were blogging about in general. Don’t believe me? Sit right back while a tell a tale…

Last month I had the honor of not only writing the CEO’s keynote at our annual customer conference, but actually playing the part of Sean Connery in an SNL Celebrity Jeopardy spoof. I wanted to share the picture with one of my friends that works at a law firm. I figured the easiest way to share the photos would be to put them on my MySpace page. The server space is there and the URL is easy to remember www.myspace.com/robpatey.

What I forgot was that you need to have a log-in to view all the pictures on the page, I apologized and was ready to send the pictures as an attached e-mail. He told me to hold on a second, he put me on hold and when he came back I heard him clacking away the keyboard putting in a log-in. I said, “What are you doing? I thought you had shunned anything remotely to do with MySpace?” He retorted, “ I have, but my wife keeps up a dummy account for her job.” I knew his wife was a recruiter at the same firm. “You mean she keeps an account running to check prospects MySpace pages?”, was my surprised retort. “Dam skippy, MySpace, blogs, basically anything on the Internet is looked into.”

So, what’s the moral of this story? Anything is fair game these days when it comes to blogging. I have actually received several freelance jobs based off my e-musings, but I am also a corporate communicator so people expect us to be slightly off kilter, I honestly feel the more whacked out you are in this position, the better off you will be. Just remember though, not all companies or employers want a free spirit that speaks their mind.

Yes, in a perfect world, anyone could say anything (truthful) they wanted about their company, their boss, their job or their co-workers and have no repurcussions. And then we'll all join hands and sign Kumbaya! Sorry folks, the real world just ain't like that!

All I can say to Mary is, how nice for you to be independantly wealthy. Truth is most people need their jobs, and there are companies (lots of them) who would, if not fire employees for saying negative things (even if true), certainly negate promotability prospects or make their daily life unpleasant for speaking out.

I personally put my name on what I post, because that's my personal code of ethics. But there have been opinions through the year I couldn't or wouldn't post on a public website because I couldn't put my name to them without causing trouble for myself.

Ultimately, I think Mark is right-if the Ragan.com site wants extensive participation, having the option to be anonymous is necessary.

Well, that's what I'm talking about, Rob. Not fear of your employer today, but knowledge that you've got several more decades to put bread on the table, having gotten that bread from corporations who could give a rat's ass about freedom of expression.

I guess the question is, how we personally respond to it. Do we keep speaking our mind and hope for the best (as you do) ... or do we decide to keep our Internet image squeaky (while perhaps tossing anonymous bombs at people in online forums).

I definitely know which approach I prefer. But as Mark says, in the interest of vigorous and candid debate, I'll accept the other folks too—unless and until they ruin that vigorous and candid debate.

One last thing. I get that David's question was an over-arching one, and not exclusively about the Steve article that generated it. However, if someone can enlighten me on how saying nasty (and in my opinion untrue) things about Steve and his writing could POSSIBLY affect their employability, current or future, I'd like to hear it! Those people didn't NEED to post their comments anonymously, they were just too cowardly to tell Steve what they thought with their names attached.

Many times anonymity is an easy way to be vicious, ranting, and frequently ignorant commenters about someone or something they just don't like. While the option of anonymity is necessary to protect legitimate free speech in some cases, it is truly unfortunate that small, petty people frequently co-opt an honourable institution for ugly purposes.

Coupla things:

On myragan.com, even if you use a name, it can be a fake name, can't it? I mean, for all you know my real name might be bin Laden. So probably there are more "anonymous" comments there than you think. And isn't it the same on MySpace?

How do the suits check up on us without employing hard-core geeks? I know they do it; I want to know HOW. Rob, how does your friend's wife do it?

Mary's World sounds lovely but it's a fairy-tale. There are all kinds of reasons, good and bad, why employees aren't given free rein to say whatever they like online. A workplace is not a democracy, and quitting jobs is not a healthy habit.

We get what we ask for. These days, we are, as Mark put it, "more interested in robust debate" than in anything else. It's fun, freeing, and creative, but also dangerous. I'm not on the "Cult of the Amateur" bandwagon, but we've all seen brilliant posts and ensuing online conversations ruined by one idiot whose opinion carries as much weight as the experts' opinions. If what we ask for is robust conversation--a very good thing--we risk demeaning true expertise. The trick is to find a way to have both.

Jane,
It really is an imperfect science, especially when you get on MySpace.

MySpace doesn't force you to use your real name. My brotehr-in-law for instance uses the handle "hoodrich". So I couldn't find him unless I knew that specific handle.

Now, if you're dilligent enough there are other methods. For instance, MySpace has a great school lookup feature. Just plug in the school name/class/major/fraternity and start clicking. After all you have their resume right in front of you.

Also never negate the power of Google. My Mother likes to Google stalk me from time to time and always runs across my latest blog, just by typing in my name.

Why don't I use a pen name, quite frankly I'm not afrraid to share my opinions, no matter what that might do to my future hiring potential.

It comes down to how you want to live your life. Part of my success up until now has been my candor. This could bite me in the ass in the future, but I can't live my life on "What If?"

I'm having a where's-the-outrage moment, always dangerous for those of us who want to appear wizened.

"I ... know that every word I post out to the pervasive intertubes could quite possibly one day come back and bite me ..."

"There are all kinds of reasons, good and bad, why employees aren't given free rein to say whatever they like online ..."

"most people need their jobs, and there are companies (lots of them) who would, if not fire employees for saying negative things (even if true) ..."

But as most of us on this thread agree that we are or should be afraid to say what we think if we are to continue to eat and drink and have shelter in the U.S. ... why doesn't it occur to us that we have effectively lost a great measure of our freedom of speech?

And if it does occur to us, why do we act as if such fear is an inevitable and unchangeable fact of our lives?

David, exactly what freedom of speech have we "lost"? Are you imagining that in post-Revolutionary War years people could say whatever they wanted about their employer, or walk around drunk and naked (the 18th-century version of making an ass of yourself online) and feel no repercussions?

I think you've lost a little perspective here. If I dis my boss online, or even reveal on MySpace that I'm a practicing Nazi, nothing bad will happen to me--the worst that will possibly happen is that my boss will find a way to get rid of me, and that's HIS right in a free society. We haven't lost any freedom of speech. In fact, I'd venture to say that if the Signers could see us now they'd gape at how we've enlarged the First Amendment.

I agree with Jane. There's a great big, fat, hairy difference between "having freedom of speech" and having "consequence-free freedom of speech." That's what makes speaking out such a laudable action - you take a risk (if only of being ridiculed) by taking a stand and voicing your opinion.

Every single thing we do or say has consequences of greater or lesser degree and positive or negative result. My approach to life is that you can do/say whatever you want to, so long as you are prepared to accept the consequences of your choices without whining.

I think there SHOULD be consequences for speaking out, if only to make people stop and consider what they are about to say, and ensure they are speaking from honesty (outrage, support, terror, etc.). Also that they truly believe, and are willing to stand behind what they say, and not just spouting off knee-jerk vitriol.

P.S. I now have a mental picture of Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin staggering around town in 1776 drunk and naked, singing filthy sailor ditties - Thanks alot Jane!

And pinching wenches. Don't forget that part.

I agree. I've been watching with horror as our local paper has allowed one anonymous comment after another on it's website and it truly seems like the slimey underbelly of our community has taken over the entire website.

At this point, I don't even read them because they are so nasty.

I find that people tend to use anonymity to do or say things they wouldn't do or say in real life.

On your blog I use my first name only. That way people who know me will know who I am, but I can't be googled. At least that's what I tell myself.

Jane, Kristen--

I accept that I may be making this all sound more dramatic than it is. However:

What's changed in the last 150 years of American history is that corporations have more reach and more power and employ a higher percentage of Americans. Meanwhile, in the last dozen years, Americans' place of political and personal expression has increasingly moved to the Internet—a place where the corporations that employ everyone can see everything we've ever written on every bad and good day since we were 23 years old—potentially blackballing me from employment in a much, MUCH broader way than would have happened even 20 years ago.

In Philadelphia in 1776 I could get drunk and naked and get fired from my blacksmith job, and I could walk hungover to New York and get a new job and do it all over again.

Look, none of this is a problem for me now: I work for a company that encourages me to be as honest as I know how to be. But when I hear people say they can never say anything on the Internet for fear of getting fired because HR directors everywhere are becoming their own J. Edgar Hoovers, yes: I feel like we as a society are losing something.

And when I hear a lack of anger in their voices when they say it, I feel like maybe we're not losing freedom as much as we're willingly giving it away.

David

I never said I wasn't mad about this (actually, its more like depressed), but I do think it is to a certain extent inevitable given the way our communications have evolved, as you say in a more public way and accessible to millions instead of tens.

I will continue looking to work for companies like Ragan, who will "encourage[s] me to be as honest as I know how to be" I just also acknowledge the fact that there are less of them, than there are of the other kind. To rage against the machine ceaselessly will wear you out. You gotta pick your fights judiciously. That's all.

I find it amusing that I'm being considered "naive." I never said that it would be EASY to take responsibility for your communication. I simply said that we SHOULD take responsibility for our communication.

David is raising a great point about privacy and it's of course directly related to the issue of anonymity. The problem is in the murky area where people use privacy as an excuse for abdicating appropriate responsibility.

It seems as though the anonymity issue has been taken to heart at Ragan, though. I see I am now required to enter my name and email address in order to post this entry.

Mary, I think we're both being accused of being naive: You for saying people ought to have the courage to say what they think and me for wishing it didn't require such courage.

But agreed: The people escaping this are the ones being discussed: The anonymous bomb-throwers that Eileen refers to in her post--the ones ruining public discourse with their malice and cowardice.

To your last point, entering your name and e-mail has always been a requirement of this blog—not sure if that's just a default technical matter or what.

What's being discussed is how we'll handle it with comments at the end of articles on Ragan.com.

David

Mary, I think we're both being accused of being naive: You for saying people ought to have the courage to say what they think and me for wishing it didn't require such courage.

But agreed: The people escaping this are the ones being discussed: The anonymous bomb-throwers that Eileen refers to in her post--the ones ruining public discourse with their malice and cowardice.

To your last point, entering your name and e-mail has always been a requirement of this blog—not sure if that's just a default technical matter or what.

What's being discussed is how we'll handle it with comments at the end of articles on Ragan.com.

David

I have a perhaps slightly different reason for thinking that anonymity, when requested in MyRagan, might be a good option. I see MyRagan as an incredible resource for tapping the experience and insight of some of the most gifted, innovative, imaginative communicators in the world. Sometimes there are situations in my workplace that I'd like to talk about--not necessarily naming names or "dissing" my employer, but speaking honestly about a situation that I feel conflicted about or need advice about--and I've revealed enough about myself in my various posts and in my truthful profile that it wouldn't be hard at all to figure out where I work (at least, not for another Alaskan or for someone who works in telecommunications).

I'd like to be able to describe a scenario and ask advice without the potential of harming my employer by revealing just a little too much of the inner workings of my particular company, and also without consequently damaging my own prospects in this company. I can't see this happening very often, but more than once I've refrained from bringing a problem to the group for these very reasons.

In my research into whether or not to allow anonymous posts on internal blogs or discussion groups, one solution offered to anonymity is that anonymous posts need to be approved, whereas those attributed to an individual don't. Especially for an internal communicator, I see this as a valid option. After all, if your name is on what you write in a corporate forum, you know it's your ass on the line. On the other hand, if you know your ass is on the line, but still have a valid point of view and know that presenting it might have political consequences, but still the conversation is one that should take place, allowing the "owner" of the site to make the determination of whether to approve the post gives the whole conversation a little... how to put this? a little distance. It encourages difficult conversations without personal repercussions, and sometimes that's appropriate.

That isn't the same as giving free rein to venom or slander or anything else that's only meant to do harm. It IS an opportunity to open up a difficult topic to honest conversation.

I'm curious to hear how others regard this. Perhaps the truth is that there are some conversations that should just never take place, and that's just the nature of employment. Do your job and keep your mouth shut if you know what's good for you.

I can be honest with my boss and I can be honest with certain colleagues and business clients. But I know where to draw the line. I also know that you can say things in a manner other than "blunt" to get your point across. I have to size up each situation on a regular basis to ensure people understand my message but that I don't endanger my job.

I want my job because I love being a communicator. I need my job because I have a family. That is the fear of any employee, losing a job in a market that continuously goes up and down.

I google myself from time to time and when I do, I close my eyes. I open them slowly because I'm not sure what I'll find in the results. It doesn't stop me from speaking my mind, but I do try to consider the ramifications if I take on a particularly sensitive topic. At the end of the day, people are going to interpret what I say how they want to or they will post excerpts that fit their needs, and there is not much I can do about it.

But to blatantly put myself in a position to get fired or never hired again, other than in extreme situations such as David and Mark mentioned, is something I would not do. At least knowingly.

This of course, assumes that everyone will be honest in putting down their true identities and contact information....

Joan, Susan, Jesus, you sure have thought hard about this. Great thoughts, good questions.

Susan, you write: "It doesn't stop me from speaking my mind, but I do try to consider the ramifications if I take on a particularly sensitive topic."

Could you give us an example of such a sensitive topic?

The simple fact is that you can search the web for plenty of instances of employees being fired for their blog posts or comments to other blogs. Only a small percentage of organizations have articulated policies that help employees understand what they can and cannot say online, what will get them in trouble and what will not. Given the news reports of people beeing "dooced" (there's even a slang term for "fired for blogging"), is it any wonder people are cautious?

There are also good reasons for some people to be anonymous. The wife of an Electronic Arts worker blogged anonymously about work conditions, which led to change. Had she used her real name, her husband's job would have been in jeopardy. Fair? No. The real world? You bet.

The flip side is easy to argue, too. All of the evil done on the Internet has been perpetrated under the guise of anonymity: spam, phishing, astroturfing, the list goes on. The threat to Kathy Sierra's life was anonymous. Strumpette's attacks on a profession "she" clearly doesn't understand were anonymous.

So anonymity needs to be viewed on a case-by-case basis. It seems pretty obvious to me that people decrying Steve Crescenzo's colorful use of language were about to use such perjoratives as "douchebag" because they knew their employers would never know it was them. Personally, I think they're cowards. The Burmese blogger who anonymously criticizes his government -- because to do otherwise would earn a long jail sentence or even an execution -- is a hero.

I hate to use my old standby again, but ultimately, it depends.

Shel, I tried to find "best practice" examples of what would be an easy to understand, fair to everyone blogging policy, even just for internal blogs, and had a heck of a time. I ultimately found four or five that looked pretty good, plagiarized shamelessly, simplified where I could, and submitted it to my director--and haven't heard a word back. And internal blogging hinges on us having a corporate blogging policy in place. An appeal for examples or guidance on MyRagan netted me nothing.

I'm really not sure how to go about getting support for adopting a tool that I firmly believe will make this company a better place to work. At this point, I'm beginning to think that management really doesn't want any sort of public discourse--even with our internal "public." One of the factors I was told would be considered in the policy I proposed was to be able to point to what other reputable companies have done. The best ones I found actually trusted that employees will use good judgment and had very few restrictions: don't reveal any trade secrets, don't put the company in a position of legal liability, speak the truth, cite your sources. But I don't see something so straightforward and trusting ever being adopted here.

I know, because I teach the IT security and computer usage policies to new employees, that coming up with some dense, wordy, anything-you-do-might-be-a-career-changing-moment policy won't do any good. Can you steer me to a "best practices" resource? (btw, I just got my copy of your "Blogging for Business" book and am looking forward to some time over the coming long weekend to immerse myself in there. Perhaps this question is already answered...)

Back to the question of anonymity, though, I absolutely agree with your analysis, Shel. It depends.

Joan, I recently spent a day at the Ragan "unconference" listening to communicators similarly gnash their teeth looking for magic policies, perfect arguments for management teams to make them slap their heads and agree with what we know intrinsically: As you put it, this stuff will make our company a better place to work.

By the end of the unconference I was repeatedly smashing my head on the table in sympathetic frustration—and also in groping desperation to hear from one communicator who convinced an initially reluctant management team to give employee blogging a try and had it work.

Maybe Shel knows of such a case. But all the cases I've heard are cases where management just shrugged and said, "Yeah, sure, whatever"—or where management wasn't really consulted at all.

Joan, I completely agree with your observations that simple rules work best in complex contexts. That's why the simplest policies with just a few rules work the best for this type of situation. (If you're interested, in an article I co-authored for this month's Harvard Business Review, we talk about how leadership in complex contexts.)

I'd beware of "best practices" in this circumstance, though. The setting of a policy is a communication act that needs to take into account not only the external environment, but also the internal one. Your company's culture should be a primary determinant of what's in the policy (or for that matter, whether or not you need one).

For example, if your company has a culture where telling people not to share trade secrets seems to be pedantic, then the policy is not going to work.

Joan, look here:
http://www.thenewpr.com/wiki/pmwiki.php?pagename=Resources.BloggingPolicy