During the eighteenth century, it was common for writers and journalists to use pseudonyms, or false names, when they created newspaper articles and letters to the editor. Franklin used this convention extensively throughout his life, sometimes to express an idea that might have been considered slanderous or even illegal by the authorities; other times to present two sides of an issue, much like the point-counterpoint style of journalism used today.

Silence Dogood — Mrs. Dogood was Franklin’s first pseudonym, created when he was sixteen years old and serving as a printer’s apprentice to his brother James. Silence Dogood was a middle-aged widow who looked at the world with a humorous and satiric eye. Her letters dealt with a range of topics from love and courtship to the state of education in Massachusetts. In all, fifteen Silence Dogood letters were published in James Franklin’s New England Courant.

Caelia Shortface and Martha Careful — Franklin wrote mocking letters from these two “ladies” to get even with his former employer Samuel Keimer for stealing some of Franklin’s publishing ideas. The letters were printed in the American Weekly Mercury, a newspaper published by Keimer’s competitor Andrew Bradford.

Busy Body — Franklin’s Busy Body letters were also published in the American Weekly Mercury. Miss Body’s letters were filled with humorous looks at the battle of the sexes and barbs at local businessmen. Gossip was Busy Body’s stock in trade.

Anthony Afterwit — Franklin created this “gentleman” to provide a humorous look at matrimony and married life from a male point of view. Mr. Afterwit appeared in Franklin’s Pennsylvania Gazette.

Alice Addertongue — Miss Addertongue was a thirty-five year old gossip who provided Franklin’s Pennsylvania Gazette with stories of scandal about prominent members of society.

Richard Saunders — Of all of Franklin’s noms de plume, Mr. Saunders became the best known. Richard Saunders was the “Richard” of Poor Richard’s Almanack. First published late in 1732, Poor Richard’s Almanack is probably Franklin’s best-known publication. Richard Saunders’ humorous sayings and advice filled the pages of the almanac’s twenty-six editions.

Polly Baker — Franklin used Polly Baker to examine the negative way women were treated in the eyes of the law. Ms. Baker had several illegitimate children and was punished for her “crime,” while the fathers, many of whom were prominent citizens, suffered no such hardship.

Benevolus — While in England, Franklin penned a number of letters under the name of Benevolus. These letters tried to answer some of the negative assertions made by the British press about the American colonists. These letters were published in London newspapers and journals.

What about liable related issues? Sure anonymity is preotected, but what about in cases where liable statements are written or slanderous remarks are spoken?

Anonymity should be protected, but sometimes other issues come into play.

I agree that issues of libel and slander muddy the anonymity/identity waters. Here is a silly parable.

In today’s times, we have the ability to anonymously communicate, using ssh tunnels, anonymizer.com, or pgp and it’s open source equivalents. Not too many people use them. That is not the point. The point is, the technology is there.

Back in the early part of the twentieth century, mass production of automobiles became possible. Ford and a few of his rivals started producing cars like the Dickens. Soon, some enterprising young criminals decided it was better to rob banks and get away on cars, as opposed to the more traditional modes of transport (foot, horse, rail).

Now, did the people and government of that era raise a hue and cry to have the automobile outlawed? Did everyone and their mother decry the evils of personal transportation? Remember, this was before the SUV and global warming.

No, people dealt with the problem of bank robbery by making banks harder to rob, not making it more difficult for ordinary people to drive. (Also, cops got into the game by souping up their engines, a not insignificant outcome.)

A similar situation exists today. Some folks think it would be better to strip ourselves of our ability to anonymously communicate, to expose “bad actors”. The problem is that we will always have bad actors in the system, and dilluting our own rights will have no effect on them. Just ask political dissidents in Burma or China whether stripping them of their anonymity is a viable tradeoff for not having to endure the slings and arrows of their ridiculous critics.

As long as we value our freedoms, we will have to live with some of the problems those freedoms bring. What would you rather have, a couple of new hecklers every week or a prison/state/surveillance society?

I think we can afford to compensate some of our members for damaged reputation/lost income from an anonymous slanderer. We cannot afford to forfeit all of our freedoms for a promise that these folks will be caught and prosecuted. Remember : “I work for the government; I’m here to help you.”

When there was a controversy on Techdirt, the masters of this website tracked the IP address of an anonymous poster that was making claims. Techdirt posted that the comments were in fact coming from a company representative involved in the controversy. Pot, meet the kettle. You can’t talk out of both sides of your website.

“The point is, the technology is there.”

It it, indeed : I2P

Constitutions may not always guarantee free speech,
but whoever has some bandwidth to spare, can join
to create it technically.
On I2P you help create anonymity,
just by downloading a film :).