"The attorney representing Wilson Yard developer Peter Holsten in the lawsuit filed against him by Fix Wilson Yard has subpoenaed Google seeking information about two Uptown blogs.Neither is affiliated with Fix Wilson Yards.... MY ASS! One of these bloggers has been championing the "FWY" cause and egging residents on since the "FWY" fight began.
News-Star learned that the blogs in question are Uptown Update and What the Helen. Each blog was notified by e-mail that they had been subpoenaed as third parties through Google and that they have until Feb. 4 to file a motion to quash the subpoena. Both blogs are maintained anonymously and neither is affiliated with Fix Wilson Yard." Source/Read more.
Peter Holsten's attorney, Tom Johnson, has probably marked out all the text already, wanting to know how these two bloggers acquired their information. Wanting to see all the evidence they've got to back up the claims they've posted for months and months on their anonymously written blogs? Peter Holsten's attorney, Tom Johnson, has probably marked out all the text -- of all the slanderous remarks made by these anonymous bloggers for a defamation case too?
I can't wait to see who's behind the curtain of these two cowardly Uptown blogs. When the truth comes out, people are going to pay dearly for hiding behind the curtain and shooting their mouths (or keyboards in this case) off at some very powerful people. Trust me, I know this first hand.
Outing anonymous bloggers. Yum-Yum. I'm getting blood thirsty just thinking about it.
40 comments:
I'm a bit confused...I thought you were for transparency. The FWY lawsuit is, above all else, an action to force our alderman and her cronies to reveal information. You seem to be complaining that we want to know exactly what went on.
I don't see anything wrong w anonymous blogging-- until the fcc comes in and starts patrolling the internet I think we should leave it alone.
If Uptown Update was really transparent, they'd put a face to the name. Otherwise, they're nothing more than cowards with a computer.
Craig,
Do you think Helen would use her office and influence to create problems for those speaking out against her? Please share your opinion, because many feel it is a real concern. Personally I tend to think power entrenched tries to do everything it can to retain its position.
Also, while you and I can have our own personal opinions about anonymous bloggers, that doesn't mean that they have to forced out cause you or I don't like it. It's freedom of choice first and foremost. Do you think it's right to legally force someone to be exposed? Should government have that authority? Personally makes me nervous.
Craig, I share your suspicions of anonymous bloggers and anonymous blog commentators. In my own life try to post under my own name and never post anything I would not say in person.
However, in the case of UU, I think anonymity works, and I respect their decision. The anonymity helps keep a healthy, issues-oriented dialog going.
I don't need to remind you about the persecution in the form of vicious personal attacks you have suffered at the hands of commentators on your own blog and from other bloggers. Not everyone has your testicular fortitude, so anonymity allows more people to get involved than would otherwise.
Craig,
I am fairly new to Chicago and I have found Uptown Update very useful as an uptown resident.
I see your point about anonymity though. I didn't realize until a couple months ago that UU was anonymous.
I would fully support UU going public, but at the same time I think I understand why they are anonymous.
Many anonymous bloggers have such considerations as their jobs to consider when blogging.
I'm lucky that I don't have to worry about this, but on the other hand, there are certain things I won't discuss at all because of potential repercussions to my employer. I need my job too badly.
Many employers do not want their employees taking public stands at all, and these people might be putting their jobs at risk doing so, in the worst downturn since the 30s. I don't blame people for not wanting to take this risk. Jobs are hard to get right now.
You can be a fan of something and whole-heartedly endorse it and not be affiliate with it. For example, I am a fan of the White Sox and were I a blogger, I would talk them up and praise them every chance I got. But I am not affiliate with them.
There is nothing wrong with anonymity on the Internet. That is the point of the Internet.
Cue Mr. Holier-than-thou calling me a coward in 3 ... 2... 1...
Craig, so I take it that you disagree with the Electronic Freedom Foundation?
"Bloggers have the right to stay anonymous - We're continuing our battle to protect and preserve your constitutional right to anonymous speech online, including providing a guide to help you with strategies for keeping your identity private when you blog. (See How to Blog Safely (About Work or Anything Else).)"
http://w2.eff.org/bloggers/
Say what you will about Craig, but he puts it out there with his name behind it.
However, the arguments regarding anonymity and forceful coercion are also very important issues to be considered as part of a larger view.
When anonymity is just a veil for attacks and other criticisms, one must consider the source.
There is nothing wrong with anonymity on the Internet. That is the point of the Internet.
Huh?
Sorry, Craig but I have to agree with the rep from Fix Wilson Yard who called this an "outrage."
"The First Amendment protects our freedom of expression against suppression by the government. It is this right that has allowed for America's most liberating movements and social change. How dare they harass individual citizens for providing forums where people can voice their opinions."
Personally, I think there may be a good chance that the developer knows the non-profit is low on resources and they believe that as long as they can use their deep pockets to employ frivolous actions such as this they will be able to outlast their opponents.
As you know, I hide behind my own penname to avoid negative repercussions from our beloved alderman. We must be able to speak out - we need that freedom and when that freedom is compromised by threats of retaliation then we are forced to go underground. Freedom fighters, underground railroads, whistleblowers, call us what you will but when the powers that be have the power to do wrong, sometimes we must rely on our anonymity to protect us as we "fight the good fight."
When I was single and no children I felt the same way.
Stand by and sign what you say or post.
Once procreation took place I went anonymous.
Most of you know who I am, but occasionally my anonymity helps to discuss certain issues.
Garbage collection, gooning, breakins……..
I believe that anonymous facts are good and anonymous slander is very bad.
People that blog under someone else’s name should be criminally prosecuted.
Yes we can.
I'm curious about what you think about Secondcitycop?
OPEN LETTER TO UPTOWN UPDATE: EXPOSE YOURSELVES
I'm remaining anonymous not because I'm afraid of the alderman, but because I'm afraid of Craig.
"people are going to pay dearly"
"Yum-Yum. I'm getting blood thirsty just thinking about it."
You, sir, are a psycho.
Robin, I have enough problems with the police I see face-to-face. You want me to go after an anonymous cop blogger too?
{Thinking.....} Okay, I'll answer.
I don't like the fact SCC is run by anonymous people either.
I agree with almost all comments here (I don't totally disagree with Craig though either). There might be a reason as into why these people have their anoymous blogs (for a valid reason, like if you have other people living with you, your job, etc.).
I have to use a penname so people (bad people, like gangbangers/murders and etc.) don't find out my real name. I also have to use a penname because I'm a minor and I don't want every single thing I put out being found out by bad people. Some people who have control over me have also told me not to put my real name.
Most of you guys who comment here know my real name (which is fine with me as long you don't harm me or anything), but there's certain people who are not supposed to know my name (again, talking about the bad folks).
I also have two other people (family members) that I live with, so I'm not crazy about getting them harassed or hurt over what I've said.
If I'm a coward to anybody here just because I'm not giving my real name on my blog or here (sometimes), well, I'd have to say ... oh well. There's people I have to think about. I also have to think of my own safety. If you want my name to have a respectful disagreement or constructive critcism, that's all fine and well, but if it comes to the point of being harassed or assaulted, then no, you will not know my real name.
I know I may anger some people over this, but I had to give my honest opinion. Thanks for listening.
Timmy, Let me be very clear. You are not a coward.
Good to know, Craig :-). I try to give my real name out as much as I can but in certain situations, it's just best if I remain under my penname. Question, though, when you talk about cowardly anoymous bloggers, do you speak of those who don't give their names out at all, pics of themselves, etc.? Because of you are, I'm in agreement with you.
I see...
So, when the British forced the American Colonies to register all printing presses, in order to trace the source of anything printed...that was okay too, right?
Because you advocate the same thing.
The brits definitely wanted to be able to trace pamphlets with what they considered to be an offense, or subversive. They definitely wanted to know who would dare speak against the crown.
The right to remain anonymous is not only necessary, it is essential to a functional democracy. You think about the people who helped start this country, before you spout off. The simple fact of the matter is, remaining anonymous is all we have in some cases, when an individual speaks out against the government. Government has awesome powers which can be used for reprisal...and if a person chooses to remain anonymous, to protect themselves...you have a choice as to give it credibility:
You can choose to verify the facts or statements made, on your own.
Facts or other situations you may now have known about, had the person not had the right to remain anonymous.
Put your fascism back in your pocket, grow up, and learn a thing or two before you spout off. Sometimes you do more to drive people away from your message, than listen to it.
This is one of those times.
Anonymity in expressing one's opinion is an American right. The Federalist Papers were published anonymously. All the reasons "Timmy" gave for writing anonymously also apply to adults.
Many things on the internet are anonymous, that's part of the attraction.
What I happen to find utterly absurd is creating multiple blogger profiles which are all the same person- one with a real name and another with a snappy pseudonym to post anonymous statements or to bolster the cyber self esteem of that individual by commenting about themselves. Yeah- people do this...
Craig, the statements you made make you just as net neutral as China.
Seriously, blog owner approval? Welcome to China.
For those of us who appreciate the need for privacy, we keep our identities to ourselves and those who share our concerns for the community. We don't need the aggravation of some intolerant and troubled soul trying to stifle our opinions or pressure those whom we know. Frankly, many of us don't care for political office as much as we wish to influence those who are more power hungry. There is power in being an 'relatively anonymous' part of the community. We are not required or expected to speak out 24/7.
We have other priorities.
Sometimes, the 'penumbra of privacy' supposedly encouraged by the U.S. Constitution serves the public well.
I can see the benefit of being anonymous as a blog administrator. I don't read UU all the time, but from what I have read, it seems like the tone is pretty impartial. The blogmaster leaves it to the commenters to debate. I may be mistaken, but this is what I have observed.
If the blogmaster is a "personality" (like some people we know)or a person with a perceived "axe to grind" then the people who have a problem with the existence of the blog can use that against the blog. That is probably why they want to get their grimy hands around the identity of the UU blogger- to discredit them (and sue them too I suppose.)
In my opinion, it's not about being anonymous or identified (although I give due credit people for being themselves online), it's about how we behave in that role. Do we say only things we could say using our real names and to people's faces? Or do we snark anonymously all over the place with abandon?
However, Craig, I do respect you for your consistency and integrity on this issue.
Interesting - I do agree that some valuable information can be given if the people are allowed to remain anonymous. Not everyone is as brave as Craig but does want to make sure their voice is heard and is afraid of the consequences. There are some idiots that just type to type on a blog but you can usually figure out who they are. If you took away anonymous I really think we wouldn't get the "scoop" from those on the inside.
I apologize for posting anonymously at the moment, but as for UU is concerned, a lot of comments have been vitriolic attacks, not just at the local administration, but the community too. And very narrow-minded at that. I'm sure people of Uptown might rethink who they're friendly with when they discover who's been behind the curtain.
I wonder if people can be truly anoymous on the Internet. I thought I was being anonymous on another blog that I keep (outside of the boxing blog), and someone, a friend of mine, searched around and figured out it was me.
I know a guy who's works with law enforcement to track down hackers. If someone is being malicious on the 'Net, they probably can be found out and shut down.
Besides, outside of the folks on this list who have met me in person, others probably have figured out my real name from my boxing blog. . .
Whether UU names themselves should be entirely up to them, and I guess I wonder why you care either way, Craig.
UU's anonymity doesn't change the usefulness of the role they serve in the Uptown community.
Named or not, UU is one of the very few ways to get information on what's going on in our neighborhood. I'm grateful to them.
? Who cares if they post anonymously or not. My time in uptown taught me on more than a few occasions that WTH was fairly accurate about some of the comings and goings. It matters not to me who Irish Pirate really is.
And it shouldn't. The reality is what makes the blogging medium powerful is that people can speak their minds sans the normal prejudice that might go along with their day to day lives. Creating that space where that prejudice might not exist, is up to the individual author.
I think that's even more true when you talk about Chicago, where the neighborhood system makes things very 'tribal' in a sense that being able to pinpoint another individual in the neighborhood does serve as a threat to the individual and that threat is what enables the power base to maintain relative status quo.
In fact, the security provided by anonymity is probably, if blogging is to bring about change, going to be the most devastating weapon in the 'reformers' arsenal. It's hard for the powers that be to swat the flies if they can't see them.
It's interesting though, because the blog I consider most likely to create some sort of meaningful and sustainable change is Second City Cop, which trades almost exclusively in anonymous people trading information. There, anonymity and the sheer size of it represents a 'movement' of sorts, which may not necessarily have immediate success, but mostly definitely can't be squelched by very powerful people who would love nothing more than shutting them up
But a question: Why don't you talk about the cowardly Chicago Police at SCC then, Craig?
Being anonymous on the internet doesn't mean you are cowardly or afraid of something. It simply means you prefer to remain anonymous.
And nobody is forcing anyone to read the anonymous blogs.
===Why don't you talk about the cowardly Chicago Police at SCC then, Craig?===
Because they aren't being subpoenaed by Peter Holsten.
But Craig, I thought you said:
I'm asked what I think of anonymous bloggers. I always answer that they are nothing more than cowards. Like the great Oz in the Wizard of Oz, they act like big-shots hiding behind a curtain.
But now you say that it's only when you get served by Peter Holsten that they're cowards?
Wow!!! That's a step back!!!
If you say so.
Funny how this thread died
It died because Craig doesn't post comments that criticize him.
I have posted this on a few places, i just want to say directly to you, Craig: i don't agree with you on a few things (such as the attidue/approoach you use), but I very much appreciate your willingness to be open about your identity.
If i don't agree with you or your comments, there is at least a real human being behind them (as opposed to what i term as an Internet Phantom). I can look you in the eye, face-to-face and speak my thoughts. i think it's a lot harder to hate someone when you have to think of them as a fellow human being.
i think if the Uptown Bloggers had to reveal their identities, we'd see a lot less useless hate. There would still be criticism, but i think there would be better opportunity for the diverse views of Uptown to be heard. And the criticism would be legitimate stuff that people can contemplate and decide on their own, and not feel bullied into a decision.
Craig, can i ask you this...in addition to the anonymous issue, do you think the Uptown bloggers have a double standard when it comes to comments. We have both been out of Uptown since at least 2003 (correct?). But they rarely, if at all (it seems to me) criticize you. And if they do, they don't use the fact that you live out of the neighborhood as an excuse to attack you.
Post a Comment