I'm so sorry this was such a personal attack, Lewis. I did not see the comments and I'm glad I did not as disagreement is one thing and personal attacks are another. I have found through disagreements I have made some great colleagues and learned a lot. I can't say the same for personal attacks.

As for anonymity, it's an interesting area. On the one hand, I could never blog anonymously as I'm sharing my thinking with readers and getting to know others is important to me. On the other, sometimes people need to blog anon because of employers or they may be able to voice opinions they otherwise couldn't. But there's a line between authentically voicing opinions and personal attacks--a big one.

I'm not sure if I answered your question but I hope I helped a little ;-).

Lewis - There's no good reason conversations of the sorts we have on our blogs should ever be less than civil. Even in the midst of a heated argument, it doesn't take much effort to treat an opponent with respect.

However, when the opponents lack intellectual honesty and refuse to be held accountable by their actual identity, they typically are less compelled to engage in dialog, and they are more inclined to resort to name-calling.

IMO, your reputation is fine. As I said over on my blog, personal insults with no basis reveal more about the antagonist than they do the person against whom they are leveled.

Lewis,

I agree with you entirely about free speech, and I am also an advocate.

That being said, free speech does not mean you should go into someone else's blog and be rude.

Just because it's okay for me to stay home and swear loudly doesn't mean it's okay for me to walk into a school classroom and do the same.

If the blog in question is yours, I say you are well within your rights to remove people who disobey the basic manners that help us interact with civility.

CK, Cam and Mason:

Thank you for your insights.

It is my hope that through reader comments, we will create a consensus or at least start a conversation regarding proper behavior regarding comments, posts and anonymity.

Some of us must choose a pen name for the reasons CK sited. But should we share why we chose the pen name with our readers? And must we comment using a pseudonym?

Let's look to a TV sitcom intro for guidance...

"You take the good,
you take the bad,
you take them both
and there you have
The Facts of Life,
the Facts of Life."

The facts of blogging life is dealing with positive and negative comments from those known and those anonymous. It happens.

Lewis, you have a very strong point of view on immigration. The stronger your view, the more intense pro/con comments are sure to be.

Acknowledge, apologize, and move on. That's my super-simplistic advice for someone like yourself who has built-up credibility based upon the upstanding character you've display on your blog.

Lewis I think we have a couple of different issues here:

1 - Did you do wrong by deleting the post and its comments. IMO, absolutely not. It's YOUR blog and you can do what you want. The only time it would get to the point of hurting your credibility, again IMO, is if you started deleting any post where someone disagreed with you for whatever reason. But that clearly doesn't appear to be what happened here.

2 - As for dealing with abusive comments, I see no problem with you deleting comments from any reader that you feel has overstepped their bounds. If their intent was obviously to insult and inflame, then they have lost the privilege of commenting on your blog, IMO. I've done the same thing, deleted comments let by readers that went after other comments and other readers. They were trying to use the comments as a way to attack another person, and as soon as I saw the comment, it was removed.

And it's about weighing the needs of the many, against the needs of the few. When one reader's ability to express themselves is polluting the larger community, then you owe it to yourself and your community to take action.

My comment policy on my blog is that if I wouldn't tolerate it in my living room I won'tolerate it on my blog.

I delete anonymous comments, and abusive ones.

I agree with Mack that if you regularly deleted comments from people who didn't agree with you there would be a problem.

But nobody has the right to be abusive online or anywhere else.

John,

Actually my view about immigration is mainstream and represents the view of about 70 percent polled. But no matter the view, for me personal attacks are not to be tolerated in any environment, no matter the views expressed.

I also don't think moving on when we feel strongly about something should be discussed because it affects the medium is a tactic that I could subscribe to. I'm a Yankee from New Hampshire through and through and we have a tendency to face things headon. Life would be easier otherwise, but that just isn't who I am.

John, I agree with you in many ways, and do appreciate your comments and your kindness. And most times I do move on, as you recommend, and it is for the better. I think, however, that taking on an issue of rudeness and personal attacks in this medium that you and I love, is the right thing to do.

Mack,
I think your comments represent good advice.

Lewis:

The "living room" rule is best - anyone can have an opinion in my home (I love a good political argument, or a social theory argument, or an argument over what's better - Milk or Dark chocolate...) but you may not be abusive at any time. You may not personally attack anyone in the living room or on my blog. I will delete abusive comments (right after I blog about them...)

It's your world, you keep or delete anything you want. It's about free speech, not abusive speech. Sorry about your aggravation.

Anonymity in public discourse and public correspondence is a storied tradition. People forget that even some of the most inspirational and stirring examples of oratory and discourse involved some fairly murky, questionable, and simply plain messy backstories, rivalries, feuds, heated tempers, raging egos, etc.

Regardless, the one advantage-- if not increased responsbility-- available now is control.

If distance before could be the justification for the shield of anonymty, today it can only be a partial explanation for one's actions. If one has the boldness to give voice to an opinion, it is a disservice to deny it a credible, legitimate body as well. It doesn't mean you have to reveal yourself, but it does mean you have to present yourself when you have substance and form, not merely air, behind a name.

Lewis, your house, your rules. Explain and consistently apply them in the face of those who seek a justification to defy them. It's that simple.

In some form or another, anonymity = fear.

Fear of being exposed. Fear of connecting. Fear of a damaged reputation. Fear of being wrong. Fear of controversy. Fear of whatever.

Often times an anonymous writer comes out looking worse, simply because of his or her chosen anonymity. In this age of transparency and authenticity, one of the worst things you can do is hide.

It's a shame that hurtful things were said, but that's life I guess. You've gotta take the bad with the good. You're handling it well, Lewis, and I applaud you for sparking this discussion.

BL, Moda, Ahpi and Ryan:

I wish I could respond to each of your wonderful points separately. Unfortunately, I have time simply say that, like those before you, the conversation has been advanced because of your willingness to share.

I will say this: I would and never before have deleted a comment. And because I did not want to delete one person's comment only, I deleted the entire post, removing all opinions, including my own.

Well, what's new? There are always people who have to go to extremes to disagree and they don't always hide.

My son was once verbally abused for dressing a mannequin in his store window. And once we advertised in a main stream publication in a section supportive to gay rights. We got some very mean calls on that. I’ll let you imagine what was said. I have a file directory of emails I have received over the years that I consider pretty bad. Once we were sending emails for a charity and got a return that cursed us out and I mean heavy duty. It was from a woman. We wrote back and apologized for sending the email. She wrote back and said she didn’t mean it and had not had her coffee yet that day. Sometimes people are just having a bad day and you provide a service by being their whipping person.

My point is if you reach out to the public you will get this kind of bs. That said if it is your blog, your store and your nickel you have every right to take the comments off and what you did was 110% correct.

My name is withheld in case anyone would associate me with being a reasonable person. (:-)

By the way, Lewis, not one of the traits this person said about you is what I have experienced of you via your posts.

I think you were 100% right in deleting and unsigned blog - and you should continue to do so whether it be positive or negative. If a person doesn't believe in their own opinion on a topic enough to sign their name - then how valid or valuable is that opinion.

The trend of anonimity is scary and possibly dangerous. I know there are many people out there in Internet land who believe whatever they read on the Web - despite the source or validity - who know what disaster this trend will cause. Now you can even register a Domain name by proxy - call me crazy but I'd like to know where the information the kids are looking at is from.

Harry,

I experienced this kind of personal attack when I worked with social justice groups as a lobbiest and a grassroots leader. But I expected it. As a long-time writer, and as John says, one unafraid to discuss difficult subjects, this is a first for me.

Mona,

"...call me crazy but I'd like to know where the information the kids are looking at is from." I couldn't agree more. Thank you for your feedback.

An unfortunate and inexcusable, but not unexpected, episode Lewis.

I learned the adage, "It's not what you're called, it's what you answer to", but also know that how I identify and carry myself by what I say, my purpose for saying it, how it comes across (and whether it's understood) are pretty important too.

Anonymity serves many purposes, as do words in general.

What you had here was a case of bullying, never useful, and an attempt to hijack and suppress speech, which leads one (i.e. you) to feel a need to weigh censorship as a means of resolution.

Larger lessons to extend, draw, and apply all throughot history if buds of such activity isn't nipped.

I love speech, even something offensive, as long as something is said.

Ride on...

Lewis, it's YOUR blog and you have the right to delete anything you feel is not within the spirit of your blog. That would include personal attacks, in my opinion.

I think we certainly can disagree on issues. If we all agreed with each other, blogging might get kind of boring. But civility should be the rule. There is no reason for nastiness.

Lewis, I believe that removing the post with a disclaimer is fair as the blog is your blog. It would be an unfair action is you got caught in writing something not true about someone and after having spread the voice, you would have removed the comment.

Ryan, David and Gianandrea,

First, I agree that the first onus falls to the writer to ensure thoughts are clearly stated, and I may have failed in that area. Mea Culpa.

Second, as you all said, that does not raise a sign that says, "Give him hell." Let's disagree in ways that we can learn from each other.