And if the standard of most is what matters, then since most anonymous commentary isn’t harmful, as you freely admit, then getting rid of it doesn’t seem justified either.

Of course no one is oppossed to ‘rational’ and ‘fair’ standards. I happen to think that it is both rational and fair to allow people to speak without demanding proof of their identity first, but perhaps if you have different ideas of random and fair, you would care to share what those would be. I can’t imagine that actually expressing what you think should be done would make your case harder to make.

I did not need to go back to 1955, nor the revolution, to seek authority for my position. Although, I do revere the founders – and stick with them when I can.

The question of anonymous speech has been reconsidered in light of what the internet has done, and is doing. Doe v. Cahill, a Delaware Supreme Court case from 2005, has been widely accepted as the blueprint for how to handle this issue. That case held that a plaintiff in a defamation action must provide evidence sufficient to overcome a motion for summary judgment before unmasking an anonymous speaker. That seems to adequately protect both anonymity and the reputations of those who are victimized by unfair attacks.

I disagree that political dissent holds no personal risks. Well, let me agree with you first. Your example of academia is magnificent. Although I consider myself to be politically aligned with the Kucinich end of the political spectrum, I recognize that breaking with liberal orthodoxy in academia can be professionally fatal. Picture the hapless professor law professor (at most law schools) who might disagree with critical race theorists or the MacKinnon school. Their perspective belongs in the marketplace of ideas, but I could not criticize a law professor for wishing to take these positions on under the cover of pseudonymity.

Now, to disagree with you: Think back no further than 2002, 2003, 2004, or even later. Speaking out against the war or “our president” had significant consequences until he dropped to a 30% approval rating. There are many people who consider gay rights to be human rights (and I am one of them), but being seen as supporting the rights of homosexuals will cost you dearly in some circles. How about those who may wish to argue for atheism? In today’s America, atheists suffer far more discrimination than any other religious group. (and don’t go to the “atheism is not a religious belief” pail, you know what I mean). Knowing that you can speak anonymously enriches the marketplace of ideas — even if there is a slight (but correctable) social cost.

Should the klansman, the nazi, the maoist, be permitted to speak anonymously? What is the value in his anonymity? I reluctantly say “yes.” I believe that when repugnant ideas are brought forth, it gives the rest of us a chance to tear them down. If the “bad man” wishes to speak anonymously because he fears repercussions, I am willing to trade his anonymity for the “good man’s” anonymity.

Those with axes to grind are annoying. I believe that the mechanisms are in place to unmask those who are truly doing wrong to others. Those who are merely espousing pernicious views do not threaten me — because I know that my ideas (and yours) can stand in opposition to theirs.

-Marc