Roger and Laura discuss free speech and accountability

(Note: This is in response to comments by Laura Oates, as posted here previously. See also the thread yesterday at Laura's blog).

Laura: Cowardly anonymous comments 'eh?

Roger (in italics): Happy to read your thoughts, Laura, and as an added bonus – as though integrity were not already sufficient reward for both of us linking our identities to our opinions – now we can engage in a meaningful dialogue in a responsible manner.

I can't help but call your hand on this one Mr. Baylor, as I wonder what you would be willing to put at stake with your words should you be in the same position as those who have, until now, been held silent.

Being held silent is one thing, but holding oneself silent is quite another. In the first instance, coercion emanates from outside the individual. We’re united in opposing such a state of affairs.

In the second, it restricts action from within, perhaps owing to fears real or imagined, or more commonly, because the individual is ignorant of the precepts that define civilized discourse. Because a state of ignorance is a state of unawareness, to learn these precepts is to cure the problem.

Would you give up your job? Would you give up your career? Would you risk your livelihood, your income? Would you do that to your family, only for the sake of others who would insist that anything less than such a sacrifice is "cowardly"?

While it is undeniable that the career prospects of French Resistance fighters in WWII would have been dramatically curtailed had the fighters not sought to remain anonymous, we’re not speaking here about extreme cases in the realm of human experience. Rather, we’re speaking about taking simple, primary responsibility for one’s own opinions.

You wonder what I “would be willing to put at stake,” and I must confess to being both puzzled and slightly offended by this question. Judging by the responses I’ve received during the past seven months of NA Confidential, at least some people hereabouts feel that what is being written is important – or else, why would they respond in the first place?

Thus, given that I am a small business owner, as is Randy Smith and Rick Carmickle (among others), and dependent on the good will of customers for my livelihood, exactly how is it that I’m not risking something or putting something at stake when I venture an opinion and attach my name to it?

In defending those who opt for anonymity, you note that they face dire consequences; logically, so must Randy, Rick and Roger.

Everyone who has an opinion regarding the political processes in this town should have the right to make their opinion known without sacrificing their job, their business, their associations, or their safety.

Of course that's true, but I wonder how your argument can leap so effortlessly from the simple, pro-social and responsible act of authenticating one’s opinion by affixing identity, to a fearsome place where doing so implies an automatic, sacrificial risk to job, career, livelihood, income, and family? Shouldn’t we be undertaking the elimination of fear, not its perpetuation?

Just because we live in a small town, doesn't mean we should fall victim to small minds.

Exactly, but for this assertion to retain validity, it must be all of the “small minds,” not only some. I wonder: Is it possible to be victimized by an anonymous “small mind?”

Indeed, some of the greatest minds among us have been muzzled due to this "reveal or retreat" mandate that you have insisted on.

Greatest minds? Muzzled?

Consider that twice in recent weeks, anonymous contributors to NA Confidential have slurred my character with blatant mistruths. They know quite well where to find me, as I make no effort to hide, but how do I find them in order to correct the mistruths? Is this a level playing field? Are you defending anonynmous lies as the products of “great” minds?

Laura, you’re contriving virtue where precious little exists, and defending habits of “thinking” that have the precise effect of ravaging the very principles of “free speech” you so passionately seek to defend.

Your newly adopted constituency of anonymity desires one thing above all else, and this is the vicarious thrill of hiding unseen in the rhetorical bushes and hurling inflammatory brickbats at those who have the integrity and, yes, the simple honor to play the game by the rules, as it was meant to be played, and as it can be learned by virtually anyone who cares about doing something the right way.

Perhaps the potentiality of balancing the scales of differing opinions is off-putting to you? After all, if you can silence the opposition, you will prevail as the presumptive voice of the majority.

I believe that the efficacy of free speech has identity as its key element, in the sense that each and every one of us speaks as a unique individual. It follows that anonymity is tantamount to vandalism.

Consequently, your “off-putting” assertion is illogical, because in fact, I am upholding the highest of all standards in the presentation of “differing opinions,” not the lowest. My goal is the engage the “opposition,” not silence it, and my record of public commentary over a period of more than two decades speaks for itself.

Just a theory from a simple sociologist trained to test theories.

The sociologist is far from simple. Obviously, she cares for the future of the city. In this instance, she’s simply fighting the wrong battle, and doing so under the banner of an overly simplistic theory that doesn’t correspond with reality. Thanks, I enjoyed the chat.