As I’ve mentioned before, I decided early on that, among the things Escamoteurettes would be, one of the things largely it would not be is topical. When the volcano of the week erupts, there are a half-dozen or so blogs out there to cover the event from many angles. It’s not that I’m dispassionate about a good flamefest, mind you — I have my opinions — it’s that I didn’t create this blog for the primary purpose of contributing to them. (Well, much, anyway.)

I don’t think I am any more or any less opinionated than the next guy. The difference, though, is I don’t think anyone should agree with anything I say just because I said it. Afterall, it’s just my opinion. The most I can hope for is that someone reads what I have to say and at least considers the merits and — maybe — argue them, if you wish. But Escamoteurettes does not exist to shove doctrine down anyone’s throat. I’ll leave that to the skeptics.

The recent shakeup over at Steve Pellegrino’s Magic Rants centered largely on the subject of anonymous writers and, as a spinoff, on linking to other blogs. Take a look at this page to familiarize yourself with the subject at hand.

Steve writes:

The blogs that I’ve removed are the ones where the bloggers have made a decision to be anonymous. While some people do not consider that it’s important to know who is writing, personally I think it is.

As arguments continued about the “real reason” Steve made the change, and even more questions raised, at the end of the day, this is about one man making a decision for himself — note the use of the word “personally” in that statement above. In this case, Steve has decided not to link from Magic Rants to anonymously written blogs. He went on to explain his reasonings and, agree or disagree with them, it’s his blog and he’s free to act as he wishes. So are you, if you author your own blog. This last point is born out by several comments on several blogs in which the respective authors question and argue what they believe are the underlying reasons for Steve’s decision.

As was expected, the subject of free speech reared its head. It always does. I’ll deal with that in a moment. But first, anonymity.

I suppose if Steve would have just dropped the links without a word, there wouldn’t (currently) be 28 comments on that one post. But dropping the links without giving a reason would circumvent one of the reasons for doing so. I sent a note to Steve expressing my support of his decision and went on to state that I had been considering a similar move in hopes that it would turn the tide in the world of magic blogging. (Recent events have shown me the folly of my desire.)

One of the people who wrote me over my comments in that thread was Jim Short. I’ve never met Jim. I don’t believe we’ve ever spoken on the phone. But we’ve traded email, blog links, and opinions. I happen to like Jim and respect his opinions. But does knowing his name have anything to do with my respect for Jim and his opinions? Surprisingly (for some) the answer is no, it does not. So, knowing my opinion on anonymity, the question then becomes, why is that?

For me, it’s not so much a matter of whether or not someone signs their name to their opinions, although I’ve been on record for many, many years that I’d prefer people use their real name. The issue for me is intent. Do I get the overwhelming impression that someone is refusing to identify themself so that they can verbally snipe from the shadows and, thereby, avoid being forced to publicly take responsibility for what they write?

It’s not a silly question, given one magic blogger’s admission in his own blog that he remains anonymous in order to avoid the backlash that would result in people refusing to buy his products.

Yes, I know, in a perfect world thoughts and opinions would be taken on face value absent any indication as to the authorship. But do I have to remind you this isn’t a perfect world? And this is not about me wishing some people would put a sock in it, because it’s not.

To use a topical example, if you were Glenn Bishop, would you prefer to have criticisms leveled at you from someone who will publicly engage you while identifying who they are, or would you prefer to have those criticisms written from behind the corner using an anonymous hand?

Hey, it’s just a question — but if you seriously consider it and answer it honestly, you might find you have a different opinion on things.

Now that I’ve raised a few hackles, before this gets too deep, I should explain a few of my opinions. I just want to lay the foundation for why I think the way I do in this anonymous issue. These are general comments about how I see things and attempt to run my own railroad. Your mileage may vary on your own railroad:

1. I am a fan of free speech. The United States of America pioneered the right to protected speech. I embrace this right and, while other countries around the world clearly do not, I’m happy to see others reach for the right to their own free speech. The Internet and, specifically these days, the Worldwide Web, allows people around the world to engage in speaking their opinions freely. Blogger.com is one tool that helps many, many people easily and conveniently express themselves.

But there are often a few problems with throwing around the phrase “freedom of speech”.

First, the guarantee of free speech does not guarantee an audience. For a moment, let’s set aside the primary reason why the Constitution of the United States of America codifies the right to free speech. No where does it guarantee its citizens an audience to hear the speech. Chose your forum as you see fit, but don’t demand anyone attend. That’s not the way things work.

In the blogging world, your free speech forum is your own blog. Go forth and blog to your heart’s content. Keep it legal, and you are free to speak.

Oh, wait a second, did I just mention a limitation of your right to speak freely? Yes, I believe I did.

In an orderly society, there are limits on freedoms. There have to be because there will always be idiots and/or inconsiderate people who, in their pursuit of personal freedom and satisfaction, trample on the rights of others.

In the world of free speech, there are limitations based on how one person’s speech may affect others. This is generally in an effort to avoid harming others. The U.S. Supreme Court acknowledges that free speech — like all of our other freedoms — do not exist in a vaccuum. The famous phrase “shouting fire in a crowded theater” illustrates nicely one limitation on free speech. While you are free to open your mouth and shout what you like, there may be consequences to your actions — in other words, you will be held responsible for your actions.

If you shouted fire anonymously in a crowded theater and caused harm, how can those harmed hold you accountable for your actions? It is their right to expect to not be harmed in a situation like sitting in a theater watching a show.

2. I believe in personal responsibility. I believe a person should voluntarily take responsibility for their actions. Unfortunately, not everyone agrees with that, so there are laws that enforce responsibility.

Especially today, there are people who do not believe in limits on free speech; after all the word “free” is integral to the phrase “free speech” right?

But then, there are people who do not believe in limits at all. They are of the mind that there should be no limits on their behavior. If they have a thought, it should be let free. If they have a want, it should be satiated. If they believe music should be free, then the RIAA should get out of their way so they can download as many MP3 music files as their broadband connection can stand, regardless of the rights of others.

The problem is — as a general rule — people have consistently demonstrated that they will not voluntarily respect the rights of others as they, themselves, go about the countryside embracing their own right to the pursuit of happiness. Therefore there are laws that limit what we can and cannot do. An orderly society needs laws and a method by which those laws can be enforced. Otherwise, we’d have something called “anarchy” — a word embraced and lauded by many of these same people who are in favor of breaking those laws to begin with.

I wonder how would those people — those who argue against limits on behavior — respond to this scenario: a group of people suspect another person is, say, downloading unauthorized music files. That group believes such behavior is wrong and decide the best way to handle that situation is to break down the front door of the suspect, take the downloader to a basement room, tie him to a chair, and beat the living crap out of him once an hour until he’s dead.

Sounds extreme, doesn’t it? It is. Fortunately there are laws (I’m speaking of the USA here) that limit the behavior of others and make illegal that sort of thing. Laws, those things that help moderate an orderly society. Laws, those awful things that get in the way of downloading unauthorized MP3s. And saying anything you want, any way you want, without respect to how it might impact the life and freedoms of others.

What does this all this have to do with Steve not supporting anonymous blogs?

Glad you asked.

Steve indicated he wants to know with whom he is communicating. If you read between the lines, you might see the bold print that communicates, too, that he prefers people to be responsible for what they write. No where did Steve demand anonymous bloggers stop being anonymous, or stop writing (or starting) anonymously authored blogs, or even become responsible for what they write. He simply stated he won’t support those who choose to remain anonymous.

That, then, brings up the dreaded word, “censorship.” Like the phrase, “free speech,” the concept of censorship has been twisted out of shape.

I could launch into the same sort of explanation I did above about free speech, but let’s cut to the chase:

How does someone abridge your ability to speak freely — to write in your own blog — if he stops linking to your blog?

The answer, of course, is he doesn’t because he cannot. But this points to the difference between the guarantee to speek freely and the idea some people have of a guaranteed audience.

Someone linking to your blog from theirs is largely a courtesy, a shout-out, or a statement. Sometimes all three, sometimes none of the above — sometimes a link is just a link.

My blogroll includes links to some blogs I enjoy reading regularly. But it also includes blogs I don’t necessarily read and approve of all of the time, but I link to them because I am part of a community of magic bloggers and — with few exceptions — I’ll still link to them but leave it to you, the clicker, to decide for yourself if a blog is worthy of reading. I don’t deign to be any authority on anything other than whether or not I need another cup of coffee. (Which, at the moment, I do.)

But, like Steve, I’ll reserve the right to link or not link to someone else’s blog for my own reasons, just as others have chosen to link or not link to Escamoteurettes for their own personal reasons. But whether or not someone links to your blog in no way abridges your ability to express yourself in any way you wish, even if that means discussing why you think someone is wrong about removing a link. And if that’s not freedom of speech, please tell me what it is.