Albany

As someone who writes for the stodgy mainstream media, I'm predisposed to be wary of words that are anonymously written.

If you are not willing to put your name on an article, I have no reason to trust that you are even attempting to be accurate or honest. Anonymity is cowardly. It is anathema to fairness.

So I have worries and concerns about the furor that erupted last week after a left-wing website posted an anonymous piece that tied two Capital Region businesses to the controversial group known as the Proud Boys.

If you missed the uproar, I want to congratulate you for successfully avoiding internet outrage, because the piece spread like wildfire across Facebook with its claim that the "extremist alt-right group" is "growing in Albany."

The evidence for the growth was pretty minimal. The article cited the social-media activities of just four people, and it explicitly tied three to their apparent employers: Lark Street Tattoo and Crisafulli Bros. Heating and Plumbing.

Did the authors contact either business for comment? No.

Did they contact the named employees to ask about the extent of their Proud Boys involvement or if their employers were aware of it? No.

More Information Contact Chris Churchill at 518-454-5442 or email cchurchill@timesunion.com See More Collapse

Instead, they spread tar with a broad brush, without any apparent concern for consequences. Predictably, Lark Street Tattoo and Crisafulli Bros. reacted with alarm.

The latter released a statement noting it is "a family-owned and solely women-owned business whose values and corporate culture support diversity and inclusion of all."

Lark Street Tattoo co-owner Tom Martin initially defended the free-speech rights of his employees, which was akin to throwing gasoline on the fire. Angry Facebook commenters demanded that the employees be fired, and the tattoo parlor later said they voluntarily resigned.

"There is no place for hate at Lark Street Tattoo," the business said in a statement.

I suppose I should get around to discussing the Proud Boys and what they believe. I'll confess I had never heard of the self-described fraternal organization until last week's furor.

Let's see, where to begin?

Proud Boys have an initiation ritual that involves the friendly beating of a new member that stops only when the poor soul names a fifth breakfast cereal. (Seriously.) They wear Fred Perry polo shirts. They despise political correctness. They love President Trump. They're for the legalization of drugs. They love guns. They venerate entrepreneurs.

More controversially, Proud Boys also venerate housewives and old-fashioned masculinity/sexism. And they want to bring back "a spirit of Western chauvinism during an age of globalism and multiculturalism."

What does that mean exactly? Pro-West sounds suspiciously like pro-white, but if we're being super generous, it could also mean an affirmation of the liberal values the West has helped promulgate — gender equality, the rule of law, freedom of speech and religion, etc.

Some observers have suggested that the ambiguity is intentional and that the Proud Boys wink at racism but leave themselves just enough wiggle room to deny it. Some think the group is an expression of growing male alienation but is ultimately goofy/pathetic and harmless. Others believe the group is alarming and potentially violent.

How do the people at the center of our local controversy see the Proud Boys? Are they serious members? Why or why not?

We don't know. The anonymous article made no attempt to ask them. I tried to reach two on Monday with no success.

The article, by the way, provided no evidence that the employees had ever done anything hateful or violent. And when Times Union reporter Amanda Fries asked around about one of the tattoo parlor workers, she found a lesbian Muslim who spoke well of him.

"If you ever meet him, he's so soft-spoken, he's all about peace and love," said Shahila Abbasi. "He's such a good guy, it just doesn't sound right to me."

The point here isn't to defend the Proud Boys, who seem to revel in being obnoxious and vile, or to suggest that people shouldn't oppose them. The point is to raise questions about fairness in the internet age.

Are businesses responsible for the social-media likes and political beliefs of their employees? If so, does that raise privacy concerns?

Are we really OK with anonymous articles that target real people and businesses? How do we know the claims are accurate?

If we don't, shouldn't we refrain from sharing them on Facebook? Who gets held accountable if the claims are wrong?

Even those who are worried about the Proud Boys and are inclined to see the anonymous article as a form of vigilante justice should remember that the same shaming techniques have been used to expose rape victims, closeted gays or supposed terrorists — and not always accurately.

The truth is that nobody can defend themselves against anonymous online claims and conspiracies, right or wrong. Anybody could be next.

cchurchill@timesunion.com • 518-454-5442 • @chris_churchill