Not too long ago, David Eberwein made quite a cheerful and thoughtful vlog about the problem with deaf/hoh anonymous posters slamming deaf bloggers and named posters. I remembered David E. from my days at Gallaudet: a cheerful, thoughtful leftist with a nice smile and a Prozac personality. I also remembered that he had a terrible tendency to go after some people, especially "anonymous" posters, who criticized him for whatever reasons, mostly in the VAX discussions (for the young ones, the VAX was Gallaudet U's system-wide network computing - think of an early form of grid computing, sort of) and in person. I never got to know him that well but we did exchanged discussions in politics, deaf politics or whatever; he was a leftist and I was a right-winger. That being said, David and I don't see eye-to-eye on some subjects.

At least he was still being cheerful about disagreements back then. He's still this cheerful fella, nothing new, I guess. Anyhooooo.... in that guest vlog via Joey Baer's Vlog, he presented good, valid points about social context, English and deaf children reading deaf blogs and seeing all the negative comments. He wanted all of us to get in touch with the persons who may dislike or disagree with us, try to work it out through dialogue, then stand side-by-side to sign-a-song, "We Are the World" together. I was like, "WTF?"

David (and Ridor), people who post disagreeable comments anonymously are not evil or have evil intentions at all. They are anonymous for one very good reason: to avoid retaliation. Under the guise of free speech, people have a freedom of choice to declare out loud or post a comment anonymously, or publicly if they're brave, to someone they can disagree or dislike with and not worry about retaliation in return. Except for making such no-nos like threats or outright insults, people who post comments anonymously are not cowards or deviants.

Let me illustrate few good examples throughout the history of free speech and what happened to people who spoke out anonymously against bad people or bad laws but got identified somehow and were retaliated in return in the most tragic senses:

• The French Revolution and its disastrous aftermath: the Reign of Terror by the Jacobins. Many French originally supported the revolution, only later became disenchanted with the endless bickering and quarrels between rival political factions, anonymously criticizing them. The result? Somebody overheard or identified who said this, who said that? Then, off with their heads!

• The Russian Revolution, its civil war and the rise of Stalin to power. Stalin, while covertly eliminating many of Lenin's and Trotsky's peers, sought to silence all the critics, anonymous and public, who became alarmed of Stalin's increasingly authoritarian stance and his grim appetite for murderous reprisals. (Hmm... sounds familiar with a certain Putin in the Kremlin?)

• The rise of Hitler and the Nazis, the feud between the SA and the SS resulting in a divided Germany, a frightened majority of dissidents and critics, and a regular Army that was not willing to pledge loyalty to Hitler until the SA is done away. All that changed on June 30th to July 1st, 1934. After that, anonymous dissidents and critics were gradually eliminated or silenced.

• The madness of Mao and his Cultural Revolution debauchery. Many of his former comrades and followers who fought for Mao in the Red revolution of China turned against Mao, either anonymously or publicly. Sensing a growing threat to his maintenance of his own power base, Mao launched a different kind of revolution by going after his supposed rivals, his actual rivals, his anonymous dissidents and his public critics, with enough willpower to convince the younger generations to quell any threat to the great Mao.

We are fortunate to live in a free society that embrace and encourage free speech and freedom of expression, allowing to people to express their opinions, to share their thoughts, to praise or criticize people, situation, affair or event for any reason, whether it is publicly or anonymously. People wanted to have the freedom to criticize someone or something anonymously and not worry about the fear of retaliation in return. It is not just about them, it's their comments that matter, their points getting across, making sure theirs stick to whoever like it is and let others be the judges of that.

Although, childish insults, empty or real threats in discussions or comment-posting to someone are definitely no-no and does not help advance free speech or debate in any subject. Realistically, people should know better, but we cannot expect or encourage everyone can get along with everyone just because the cheerful David Eberwein said so.

Anonymous posters should not be immediately identified so you wanted to have the opportunity to go after him/her and force him/her to understand your viewpoints in the name of social collectivism? Or off with their heads?

They should be commended for having the chutzpah to say it is like it is.