Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority....

In article <q8q0ds0jcj5m5hr472ajkm7oesoojtp1nd@4ax.com>, Gregg <elrond1@home.com> wrote: [...] >The one thing I do have which Velcro Kitty, Rosalita and a
>long line of OSA mouthpieces have never had, is the courage to openly
>use my full name. OSA shills know they must snipe from the dark
>because they are in the wrong and therefore weak. Some critics post
>anonymously or by pseudonym out of genuine fear of the immoral an
>unethical retaliation tactics and policies of the Co$.
> The retaliations, revenges and punishments the morally
>bankrupt Co$ has sought to heap upon those of us 'in the open'
>are justification for the privacy desired by many a critic.
>
> OSA hides here. And Co$ storm troopers hide their names when
>they swarm me.
[...] Gregg, this is key. Anonymity has good uses and bad. In the U.S. the Supreme Court has said:

Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority.... It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation-and their ideas from suppression-at the hand of an intolerant society. The right to remain anonymous may be abused when it shields fraudulent conduct. But political speech by its nature will sometimes have unpalatable consequences, and, in general, our society accords greater weight to the value of free speech than to the dangers of its misuse.

-- United States Supreme Court decision No. 93-986 April 19, 1995

Go Back