In Mr. Ed Tubbs recent article, he attacks anonymous and pseudonymous writers as "summer soldiers" and spineless cowards. I write this in respectful disagreement. Throughout the history of America, such authors have provided invaluable contributions to our political discourse, and played an indispensable part in the founding of the nation. They continue to be an integral part of democracy.

::::::::

In Mr. Ed Tubbs recent article, Today is the Fourth. Stand up. For at least once in your life STAND UP!, he attacks anonymous and pseudonymous writers as "summer soldiers" and spineless cowards. I write this in respectful disagreement.

I write under my real name most of the time. I use pseudonyms occasionally, such as when I write satire or sarcasm that I would rather not be associated with my "serious" byline. But I use "JC Garrett" when I write articles, while I use "Chris Garrett" when writing to my Congressman, Senators and most other government officials. Both are my real name, but I would rather not make it easy for a simple computer search by a staffer to find out exactly what kind of trouble that dissident, Chris Garrett, has been stirring up. It helps ensure that "Chris Garrett" doesn't get blacklisted from congressional e-mail lists. And since my Congressman was a prominent judge before my mentally-challenged neighbors foolishly elected him to represent them in Washington, it provides a slight buffer to the harassment and vindictive abuses of power in which those in high positions so frequently engage. He's got buddies in the sheriff's office who would be glad to oblige a request to make someone's life a little less pleasant.

While I don't usually fly or travel out of the country, many people have been added to the government watchlists because of their letters to the editor of their home-town newspapers. This is not an exaggeration. It is a fact. The Washington Post reported in September 2007 that Zakariya Reed, a Toledo firefighter, "has been detained at least seven times at the Michigan border since fall 2006." He was questioned twice by border officials about "politically charged" opinion pieces he had published in his local newspaper that were critical of U.S. policy in the Middle East. Once, he said, "they had them printed out on the table in front of me."

Too often, dissent is treated as a crime. The "incitement" doctrine has been used to crack down on free speech, and the Patriot Act has removed any barriers that once held the state in check. It's amazing how far we have drifted from what used to be known as freedom. President Abraham Lincoln once said:

This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it.

But now we have come to the point at which even suggesting overthrowing the current government can land a loyal citizen who considers himself a patriot in prison for years. And something as simple as writing an op-ed criticizing George W. can get you detained, harassed or worse.

Moreover, the idea that a person must sign his "Christian" name to his writings for their contents to be considered legitimate is hokum. Whether I sign my article with my given name or another, the substance of the piece is still the same. It contains the same facts and opinions, the same perspective, and the same purpose no matter the insignificant scribbling of a moniker that is attached to it.

Also, the writer who uses a pseudonym does the general public no injustice. What does the public, most of whom have never and will never meet the author, care about whether it is "John Smith" or "Sandy Sand" who makes a good point about how much of a moron the president is? What is the benefit to Ed Tubbs to know that JC Garrett from East Texas wrote this piece? Would it not contain exactly the same words and meaning if it were signed "CG Jarrett"? The reader is not edified or sleighted in any way by the use of either. The writer defrauds no one by keeping his legal identity and place of residence secret. Why would it matter to Mr. Tubbs whether I typed (actually, hunted-and-pecked) this in Piscataway, New Jersey or Booger Holler, Arkansas? 

No, the main purpose of anonymity or pseudonymity when writing of dirty politics and corrupt government is to protect the writer from the government of which they write. Another purpose is to reduce the chances of being ostracized by family, friends and neighbors for their views. It does not render an author a coward to write anonymously or pseudonymously. It means he is cautious and vigilant, knowing that the present government is not known for its toleration of dissent, and that the Vice President himself blew the identity of a covert agent in retaliation over an opinion piece written by her husband. That's not scared, that's smart.

Perhaps Mr. Tubbs has not heard of Laura Berg, the nurse at a Veterans Affairs hospital who was threatened with a sedition investigation after writing a letter to the editor criticizing the Bush administration's shameful handling of Hurricane Katrina and the Iraq war.

Yes, sedition: inciting rebellion against the government.

What terroristic, unpatriotic, treasonous words did Ms. Berg write that would trigger such a reaction?

I am furious with the tragically misplaced priorities and criminal negligence of this government...We need to wake up and get real here, and act forcefully to remove a government administration playing games of smoke and mirrors and vicious deceit.

That's all it took to bring the full weight of the Bushie-infested government crashing down on her head. The New York Times told the story this way:

Her superiors at the hospital soon alerted the Federal Bureau of Investigation and impounded her office computer, where she keeps the case files of war-scarred veterans she treats.

Then she received an official warning in which a Veterans Affairs investigator intoned that her letter “potentially represents sedition.”

It took civil rights litigators and Senator Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico to “act forcefully” in reminding the government of the Constitution and her right to free speech.

The Department of Veterans Affairs retreated then finally apologized to the shaken Ms. Berg.

Even then, she noted, one superior told her it was preferred that she not identify herself as a V.A. nurse in any future letter writing.

Ms. Berg was a true patriot, working to care for the soldiers wounded in Bush's war of choice - and still just two sentences published in a local paper got her branded as a traitorous, dangerous enemy of the state. She was lucky. What if her senator had been one of mine - John Cornyn or Kay Bailey Hutchison - two of the biggest carriers of Bush's holy water in Washington. I assure you that they would not have lifted a blue-blooded finger to help a critic of their beloved Commander in Chief.

As a matter of fact, I found myself in a quandary not long ago when I decided to write a letter to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. I knew that if any e-mail was going to be read, it would be that one, and it wouldn't matter what name was at the bottom. And if Big Brother thought Ms. Berg's letter to the editor was treasonous, they would have shot me on sight after reading my letter to Bush's sworn enemy. Not that it was seditious. I simply asked that Iran avoid any provocative action for the last thirteen months of Bush's presidency so that he couldn't seize the opportunity to launch another war.

But I was critical of the administration's policies and Bush's lack of sanity, and included a brief passage on the possibility of even the sending of the letter being held by the Bush administration as an act of treason:

President Bush and his small minority of followers would call this letter treasonous, and brand me as a traitor for writing it. As I am sending it over the internet, I have little doubt that it will be read by government eavesdroppers, and I must confess that I considered not sending it at all for fear of being seen as a traitor. 

But I consider myself a patriot, loyal to the values and principles upon which America was founded. When those principles are abandoned by those in power, it is they who become traitors, for my loyalty was never pledged to them, but to the principles they vowed to follow and preserve.

This being the present situation, I have come to the conclusion that continued loyalty to an administration that has cast those principles aside is traitorous. And if sending this letter is the current leadership's measure of a traitor, then let them call me one publicly. Because if supporting the policies of this administration is the measure of a patriot, then I will wear the badge of "Traitor" with pride, and I will glory in my treachery.

When my wife read it, she went bonkers. She instantly broke into tears of fear and anger. She said to me, "You have seen what they do to people. Why would you put your family at risk like that?"

I told her that it was out of love and concern for my family that I was writing it. I explained to her that if there is a war between the U.S. and Iran, it is an absolute certainty that nuclear weapons will be used by both sides. She said that Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons. I replied that if we went to war with Iran, it is certain to be World War III, because every Muslim nation in the Middle East will perceive it as war on Muslims. Pakistan has nuclear weapons, and they are already becoming more hostile to America. Syria has just been attacked by Israel, reportedly due to secret dealings with North Korea in which they are trying to establish a nuclear weapons program. While there has never been public mention of Saudi Arabia possessing nuclear weapons, it would be naive to dismiss that possibility. Russia has a huge stockpile, and has seemingly allied itself with Iran. China and North Korea are unlikely to remain neutral. Israel will not hesitate to launch a nuclear attack if war ensues.

I told my wife that I could not live with myself if my two year-old daughter was killed or disfigured by a bomb or radiation poisoning, knowing that I foresaw the danger, and yet did nothing at all to try to stop it.

Through hers tears she asked, "Will you be able to live with yourself when they come in the middle of the night and take your whole family?"

I asked her if she really wanted our baby and her 13 year-old sister to live in a world like that. She said that one letter wouldn't change anything, and if everyone else is writing letters then my letter wouldn't make any difference anyway. "You've got a family to think of. Why would you jeopardize that when your letter won't matter one way or the other?"

"Everybody has a family," I said. "If nobody with a family speaks out because they are afraid, then who will speak out? If I am so afraid that I cannot even send a letter urging continued peace and goodwill, then what am I?"

Out of respect for her, I postponed sending the letter for two days while I searched for a way to follow my conscience without ignoring her valid fears. After some thinking, I hit upon the answer. It would be easy for them to accuse or harass my family if I sent a letter only to Ahmadinejad, but if I sent the same letter to several members of the U.S. Congress explaining my purpose, it would be difficult for anyone to call me an "enemy of the state," and impossible to "disappear" my family or myself.

That doesn't make me "braver" than anyone else. It simply means that I overcame a reasonable fear that everyone in America should feel today, and that I cannot blame anyone for feeling. I also can't blame them for wanting to avoid the possible consequences by remaining anonymous.

Mr. Tubbs states that those who would dare write under an assumed name are "too timid, too faint-hearted, the summer soldiers who lack even sufficient courage to identify themselves appropriately." While I strongly disagree, Mr. Tubbs is entitled to his own opinion. But in the very next sentence he abandons opinion to create his own fact from wholecloth: "Not a single advance in human progress has ever been accomplished by such as these." On this point, Mr. Tubbs is undeniably incorrect.

Throughout the history of America, anonymous and pseudonymous authors have provided invaluable contributions to our political discourse, and played an indispensable part in the founding of the nation.

In a 1999 Cato briefing paper, Nameless in Cyberspace: Anonymity on the Internet, Johnathan D. Wallace pointed out the crucial role played by such speech:

Controversial and thought-provoking speech has frequently been issued from under the cover of anonymity by writers who feared prosecution or worse if their identities were known. Cato’s Letters, an influential series of essays about freedom of speech and political liberty first appearing in 1720, were written by two British men, John Trenchard and Thomas Gordon, under the pseudonym “Cato.” Cato’s Letters had a wide following in America: Benjamin Franklin and numerous colonial newspapers reprinted the letters; John Adams and Thomas Jefferson both quoted Cato.

“In the history of political liberty as well as of freedom of speech and press, no 18th-century work exerted more influence than Cato’s Letters,” historian Leonard Levy has written.

Mr. Wallace goes so far as to call anonymous and pseudonymous speech "cornerstones of free speech."

Thomas Paine’s famous Common Sense was first published signed only, "An Englishman."

James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay wrote the pseudonymous newspaper letters known as The Federalist Papers under the collective pseudonym "Publius." And it was not a one-time thing: 85 of those essays were published in numerous editions. They argued against the Anti-Federalists, who used their own pseudonymous identities: Samuel Adams wrote as "Candidus," Richard Henry Lee as "A Federal Farmer," and George Clinton as "Cato."

William Watkins, a freeborn black minister and doctor for the black population of Baltimore during the Civil War era, protested slavery and promoted equality under the name "A Colored Baltimorean." He later wrote for Frederick Douglass’ paper under the name “A Colored Canadian.”

James McCune Smith, who held a doctorate degree in medicine and opened the first black-owned pharmacy, wrote under the pseudonym "Communipaw" about the abolitionist cause. Historian Peter Ripley states, "Smith helped define many of the themes of the black abolitionist movement."

Sarah L. Forten, a founding member of the Philadelphia Female Anti-Slavery Society, wrote for the abolitionist newspaper, The Liberator, under the name "Magawisca." She also used the pseudonyms "A" and "Ada." Her brother, James, wrote for The Liberator under the pseudonym "F."

Sarah M. Douglass was another female abolitionist who wrote under the name "Zillah." She urged abolitionists to also "confront inequality within their own movement."

Wallace points to more modern instances of pseudonymity's role in political speech:

George Kennan, a high-ranking member of the staffs of General George C. Marshall and President Harry S Truman and considered by many to be the architect of America’s postwar policy of “containment,” signed his influential 1947 essay, “The Sources of Soviet Power,” merely as “X.”

Pseudonymity has also protected people stigmatized by prior political speech or association; many blacklisted writers continued to work throughout the McCarthy era by using names other than their own.

Contrary to Mr. Tubbs' assertion that there is no reason anyone should be afraid to publish their personal information on the internet, there are many legitimate concerns. Tubbs makes his position clear:

"I am wholly unconvinced by assertions that to provide one's full name and city of residence is dangerous today. That goes directly to the issue of courage and the strength of one’s convictions. Either you’ve got ‘em, or you don’t."

Well, many of the folks using pseudonyms on the net just happen to not "have 'em." Women are more vulnerable to violent crimes, especially those of a sexual nature, than are men. They are far more likely to be propositioned on the internet, and they are more likely to be stalked by predatorial creeps. I know I don't want my daughter using her real name and town on the internet. In many ways, that's just asking for trouble that could easily be prevented. That doesn't mean women shouldn't use their real identities if they want to, only that they should never be expected to do so if they choose not to.

But even the Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized the value of anonymous speech, and for various reasons having little or nothing to do with physical safety. In Talley v. California and again in McIntyre v. Ohio Campaign Commission the Court said, "Anonymous pamphlets, leaflets, brochures and even books have played an important role in the progress of mankind."

The Court said an author may have any number of valid reasons for concealing his or her identity:

The decision in favor of anonymity may be motivated by fear of economic or official retaliation, by concern about social ostracism, or merely by a desire to preserve as much of one’s privacy as possible.

They said that anononymity "provides a way for a writer who may be personally unpopular to ensure that readers will not prejudge her message simply because they do not like its proponent." This goes directly to my own situation in which I protect my name from being blacklisted when dealing with public officials and elected representatives. It would also include those who write under pseudonyms who may be known publicly because of their profession, and wish readers to consider the content of their message and not the person writing it.

But even more importantly, the Court acknowledged what I consider to be one of the most crucial reasons to protect the right to anonymity in political discourse:

Under our Constitution, anonymous pamphleteering is not a pernicious, fraudulent practice, but an honorable tradition of advocacy and of dissent. Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority.

In his briefing paper, Wallace notes that "the Court repeatedly upheld the right of the NAACP to keep its membership lists secret from state prying." He further says that in another case, the Court, "...citing an astonishing record of federal government harassment and dirty tricks, the Court excused the Ohio Socialist Workers’ Party from state requirements that it disclose its list of contributors."

In his book The Authoritarians, Bob Altemeyer relates a story about a woman in a nearby city who wrote a letter to the editor criticizing the mayor and city council.

She said the present council lacked initiative and acted too often in the interest of “boys with money and toys.” A few days later the pastor of the Pentecostal church she attends wrote her, saying her letter was an embarrassment because good Christians do not publicly criticize their leaders. He told her to find another church if she was not going to change her ways.

People lose jobs over what they write. They lose promotions, they get the worst work assignments, they get ignored by their union representatives who are supposed to be there to help them when they have a legitimate grievance with management. It's real, and it can affect your livelihood. It can determine whether your kids have food on the table.

I agree with Mr. Tubbs on many relevant issues, such as the need to stand up and to fight tyranny. I agree that we all should be more bold and do more than sit back and watch as spectators while our liberty is slowly siphoned off by a government whose thirst for power is never slaked.

But I also hope that Mr. Tubbs can step back from the situation for a moment and realize that one of the rights that we are fighting for is the simple right to remain anonymous.

By JC Garrett

Authors Bio:
JC Garrett is a freelance writer and Constitutional scholar from the piney-woods of East Texas.

Mr. Garrett owns and operates an independent recording studio, plays several instruments, writes, sings, and produces music.

His stories have appeared in Political Affairs Magazine, ACLU FreedomWire, Online Journal, Infowars, Prison Planet, OpEd News, Consortium News, The Intelligence Daily, Democratic Underground, Truthdig, The Memory Hole, Wired, World Prout Assembly, and local publications.