The American Spectator

Reader Mail

p> ANONYMOUS br> Re: Peter Hannaford's False Free Speech : /p> p>That's why I use my real name wherever I go on the Internet. It keeps me honest. (Also identifiable, but that's a side benefit.) br> -- Robert Nowall br> Cape Coral, Florida /p> p> I agree with Peter Hannaford's statements that web posters should be identified just like writers of newspaper letters to the editors are. What I didn't like was the Spectator's sub-head on his article: "Should the First Amendment protect the cowardice of slanderers who hide behind anonymity on the Internet?" Of course it should. As Mr. Hannaford implies, respectable websites will practice self-restraint and ban anonymous posts. But websites need to have the legal right to allow such anonymous posting. Those that do readers can dismiss as not being worthy of taking seriously. I frequently "tune out" of websites when the posters go crazy. People libeled by anonymous posters can take legal action against the website operators if they like (and it would be easier than attempting to sue someone posting libelous material on a bathroom wall). With current challenges against the American exceptionalism that is demonstrated in at least one way by the First Amendment, it is important to remember that "no" means "no" when it comes to laws Congress can pass restricting free speech. br> -- Michael Landry br> Fayetteville, Arkansas

topics:
Trade, Health Care, John McCain, Joe Biden, Sarah Palin, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Business, Satire, Islam, Law, Iran, Pakistan, NATO, Alaska, Oil