- Don Marquis

Timing is everything.

And it was fortuitous indeed for The Tribune Editorial Board's new venture onto the unfamiliar ice of the Internet blogosphere to be discussing the virtues of anonymous public commentary just as the security of Americans' private thoughts, words and activities is very much in question.

It is more than mere coincidence.

News that the Bush administration has ordered the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on certain phone calls and e-mails and also to compile a humongous database of millions of telephone calls - all without proper court supervision or serious congressional oversight - has led our early adopters to argue that a safe harbor for political comment is particularly necessary.

The initial trickle of comments on our Plato's Cave blog [http://blogs.sltrib.com/editorial/] has lined up under the view that publicly stating a political opinion, over your own name, in this polarized and fearful atmosphere could expose people to real harm.

Today's dissenters may not face the gallows that threatened Colonial American revolutionaries or the fires that loomed over the Spanish Inquisition. But there clearly is no guarantee, other than the administration's solemn word of honor, that the same tricks used to seek al-Qaida sleeper cells won't also be used to harass Democrats, ACLU members and nosy reporters.

The idea that it's just not safe to stand behind your words stands in stark contrast to the dead-trees view of things. That conventional view was put forward, not on our Web page but, as is often the way of these things, on another site that was commenting on ours.

Graciously welcoming the arrival of our effort, LaVarr Webb's Utah Policy Daily [http://www.utah policy.com] did not so much disapprove of our adopting the Internet code of anonymity as explain why it is not universally accepted, at least among us Old Media hands. Webb wrote:

"Anyone who is confident in their opinions and positions ought to have enough courage to let readers know who they really are and not hide behind anonymity. Postings of anonymous bloggers ought not to be taken as seriously as postings of bloggers willing to put their real identities out there."

That, suitably, was brought to my attention by an anonymous posting to the Cave, a posting that went on to effectively state the counter argument:

"Mr. Webb and other members of Utah's power elite would love to know the identities of their anonymous critics to inflict retaliation through job terminations, contract cancellations, personal harassment (anonymous or not) . . . Anonymity is a legitimate tactic against the illegitimate use of power. I urge those who read anonymous comments to also ask themselves what conditions in society are encouraging writers to choose anonymity."

This correspondent also noted that Webb's career as a paid lobbyist makes it ironic for him to belittle those who pronounce anonymous political opinions while he makes a living as a front for comments made on behalf of his clients.

It is a valid question. Is a political idea presented anonymously, thus required to stand or fall on its own merits, necessarily more or less sound than an idea presented with the name and photo of the author when that author is a paid lobbyist in the service of who-knows-what special interest?

Finally, a welcoming comment from those who run The Senate Site [http://www.senatesite.com] up on Utah's Capitol Hill points out the technological flaw in both sides of the argument:

"Two internet laws apply: 1. Everyone is anonymous. 2. No one is anonymous.

Ah, reason. Our search continues.