What do you think about newspapers who don't allow anonymous postings

[The Backlash Cometh]

on their online reader's forum?

In light of the Supreme Court making an issue of freedom of speech as a reason to allow corporations to buy public officials, I wondered how much each of us really, by comparison, is free to speak in this society. Some places where we live are so litigious and heavy-handed that we're just plain afraid to speak freely without speaking under an assumed name. So, when newspapers take that away, they are essentially taking away our freedom to express ourselves the way we wish to express ourselves.

Does anybody see it differently?

[depakid]

1. They're far more responsible and ethical publications in my experience

[The Backlash Cometh]

7. So you think people would reveal sensitive information under

their own names, as they would anonymously?

[NoSheep]

10. oh my.

[depakid]

13. Anonymous postings on newspaper sites play to the lowest common denominator

and more often than not in America tend to be stomping grounds of the ignorant, racist and otherwise foul.

This in addition to being little more than outlets for the AM hate radio crowd.

Morford had a rant about this last year:

Death by Moron
Has anonymous commenting destroyed meaningful online dialogue? Oh, hell yes.

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/02/13-12

[The Backlash Cometh]

14. It can't get that bad, because there's moderators.

[Cleita]

2. Just make up a name if you don't want to use yours.

They don't have corp of detectives checking everyone out.

[The Backlash Cometh]

8. It all ties into a valid e-mail address, I believe.

And they make it clear that people will know who you are.

[Cleita]

11. There are many emails you can sign up for on other computers

like at the library. Little computer nerds have taught me this. I personally only have one email I use and one that I'm required to have that I never use.

[Posteritatis]

3. Their rules; I see it as little different than letters to the editor

If I'm required to submit under my real name and don't feel like it, I'll just call myself Vladimir Fernandez O'Reilly or something.

[The Backlash Cometh]

9. On line is a different situation.

Heck, when I started posting on-line to my local paper, I got a nasty call from someone in their department claiming that we didn't have a subscription to their paper. I guess now that they don't post my material, I might as well unsubscribe?

[Brickbat]

4. I prefer it. Even making up a name weeds much of the crap out.

[lxlxlxl]

5. ABSOLUTELY DISAGREE

Brother...

Anonymous comments dont mean shit and are a gigantic distraction. I can't imagine a more pernicious and disgusting use of people's time and it appals me that we are using the internet in that way. Name one thing that has come out of the commenting technology that has done any good? The Whitey tape rumors? The Alex Jones wing of the American culture?

People are ruder, more dismissive, and are able to spew the most inane nonsense, and we are wasting an enormous amount of collective intelligence and patience on them.

Do you have any idea how easy it would be to pay someone to post nonsense on Huffington Post / Facebook / or the NYTimes? Can't you read the repetition? Would I want the same people that are enraged at comments to actually waste time posting responses? ITS A MASSIVE WASTE OF ENERGY WHICH BENEFITS THE STATUS QUO!

[The Backlash Cometh]

6. Satire, right?

Niiiiiccccee.

[Kaleva]

12. It's their forum so they get to make the rules. No big deal.