Is anonymous blogging the bane of the Internet?

One of my pet peeves is anonymous posting on the internet. Often times it removes all traces of civility from the political debate and just degenerates into name calling. My feeling is that if people have to put their names to a comment, they are more likely to think out their comments before posting them, which is why I maintain a no-tolerance policy of anonymous commenting on my blog. WSJ's Taranto addresses this issue in yesterday's Best of the Web in the context of a kerfuffle over at The Corner wherein National Review's Ed Whelan revealed the true identity of a liberal blogger who blogs under the name of Publius:

Why, then, did so many find fault with what Whelan did? Because it was bad manners. Revealing the identity of someone who prefers to remain anonymous has the potential to cause upset or even harm. It is an aggressive act--which does not necessarily mean it is wrong, but social harmony requires that people refrain from aggressive acts absent strong justification.

When Whelan revealed Publius's identity, he felt he was justified. "One bane of the Internet is the anonymous blogger who abuses his anonymity to engage in irresponsible attacks," he wrote. This is certainly true, although we do not know enough about Publius to say whether he is "one such blogger," as Whelan then asserted. Since Whelan himself now thinks the revelation was unjustified, we defer to that view.

This points, however, to a paradox of anonymity on the Internet. Writing online frequently has a disinhibiting effect. It is easier to be obnoxious when you are alone with your computer than when you are face to face with the target of your aggressions. It is easier still when your target doesn't know who you are.

I don't insist that people use their real names when posting on my blog; I would have no way of enforcing that. But I do insist that you have some kind of identity so that they will be held accountable for past comments. But even that is not enough to encourage civility. I'm not talking about bloggers who consistently post to their own blogs using a nom-de-plume, because I understand the need for anonymity in many cases. For an example of the kind of anonymous internet flaming I'm talking about, simply open any newspaper's website. Undoubtedly, the most inane and imflammatory comments you will ever read are in the comments of the articles, especially when those commenters are using a "nom de plume" and face no repercussions for random comments. They post simply to get a reaction.

If you are unwilling to sign your true name to your internet posts, I generally take those comments far less seriously than I take those thoughts posted which are signed by real people. Anonymous internet flaming, on the other hand, is cowardly and it does nothing to advance the anonymous poster's point of view.