I must say that your comment smacks of privilege. I can’t say I’m overly impressed with the courage of a long-time journalist that has received a steady pay check and benefits for something that is their life’s work, while earning public praise that he obviously craves. And doing so in a state where he’s viewed as populist.

That aside, your complaint seems to be that AKM didn’t run and hide when a politician unveiled her identity. Basically you are saying that since people now know who AKM is, she should shut up and know her place.

As for AKM, her reasons for being anonymous never really came into play, as Doogan seemed less interested in that than in outing her. Are you actually unaware that in a nation of 300 million there is a small percentage of people out there who want to express themselves, but for job and/or personal reasons want to keep their identities hidden? We all have our own circumstances, and one must give up a job or put their lives at risk to speak freely, than free speech doesn’t exist.

I use my own name because I long ago made the choice to be a journalist and have my name in print in one form or another for more than 20 years. And obviously I have my own cravings for attention. But I went into blogging understanding that it would make me extremely unattractive to the mainstream media. I’ve made about $80 doing what I love the past several years.

But I have absolutely no complaints. My situation is unlike others and I’m able to do what it is I love. But that doesn’t give me a myopia about the facticity of others that want to speak out in a land of free speech. Because I don’t believe that public discourse should only be controlled by those with the ability to stand visibly on a soap box for all to see.

Is giving up anonymity the price of free speech? Because as I see it, that would be the polar opposite of free speech. History is littered with those that have written under pseudonyms for a wide variety of reasons. Were the Bronte sisters “cowards” because they published under male names? Or perhaps they should have been outed by a local politician? What of Jonathan Swift, Daniel Defoe, Walter Scott, Jane Austen or others? Or is our time so enlightened that anonymity is unnecessary and we should all join the reality show of modern times?

My life’s travels have made me extremely sympathetic toward Alaska and Alaskans, and I respect your work. But I must say your comment is little more than a string of logical fallacies apparently written by someone that has been in their own shoes so long they no longer have an ability to recognize that other shoes even exist. More than anything, I find it perplexing that a writer would side with a politician on outing a citizen. Because Doogan is a politician. While he’ll always be a journalist, the shoes he now fills are the ones he put on when elected to public office. And he was wrong.

Regards and thanks for the comment,

Bill

P.S. Why is this the William K. Wolfrum Chronicles instead of the Bill Anonymous Chronicles, anyway?

You forgot “possibly illegal and certainly un-American.”

Because AKM allegedly conducts a business, if the business suffers, Mr. Doogam could find himself on the wrong end of a tort. From the looks of comments at AKM, there appear to be a lot of people willing to fund such a lawsuit. But even if that doesn’t happen, as EFF says:

“Privacy rights are enshrined in our Constitution for a reason — a thriving democracy requires respect for individuals’ autonomy as well as anonymous speech and association. These rights must be balanced against legitimate concerns like law enforcement, but checks must be put in place to prevent abuse of government powers.”