2 ms·
Well, all I’m pointing out is the basic truism that non-anonymous speech can and will in general be more trusted and that in many cases anonymity is not necessa
by ugh 16y ago
Well, all I’m pointing out is the basic truism that non-anonymous speech can and will in general be more trusted and that in many cases anonymity is not necessary for free speech.
Anonymity is sometimes necessary or desired but what it is definitely not is the beginning and end of free speech as was implied in the comment I was responding to.
- kijinbear 16y agoYour first point is fair enough. As for "anonymity is not the beginning and end of free speech", I don't think the comment you were responding to said anything to that effect. It only said that taking away anonymity would also take away free speech. By admitting that "anonymity is sometimes necessary", you're basically agreeing with that comment. Anonymity surely isn't all there is to free speech, but without it, free speech would be severely hampered.
- jarin 16y agoAnonymity seemed to work pretty well for the founding fathers: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_Papers http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_Papers
- tedunangst 16y agoI'm pretty sure they used their real names when signing the Declaration of Independence, but it's been a few years since my last history class.
- yuhong 16y agoIdeally anonymity should not be required for free speech but I know currently in the real world it often does. I want to push for this to be fixed though. For example, I once thought of collecting things like Reddit AMAs and turning them into an Acid test that see if an organization can tolerate it when made non-anonymous.