Agree. There are ways to protect anonymity using free speech rights as a basis, as well as other basis like whistleblower protection. But anonymity itself is not a right.

Accountability does not necessarily mean one will suffer a penalty. Look up the definition.

Is it OK to suffer civil prosecution for expressing an opinion? I guess many would answer differently depending on the expressed opinion. So, it really doesn't matter and is not relevant to my specific point.

Hadley's opinions or motivations make no difference regarding my point.

"lying", or the political twists of truth, does not equal slander. In legal space, publicly stating that a person is a pedophile can be in violation of slander laws, be it politically motivated or not.

If you want to have a debate about burden of proof required to expose someone, then fine, but that was not my point nor did I defend the actions or ruling.

Identifying a person as the speaker is not a criminal prosecution.

Don't confuse legal tools for prosecution and whistleblowing with free speech. Two different things. Free Speech is a constitutional right, the others laws related to the judicial process.

I never stated if this particular case warrant exposure, just pointing out the differences. Opinions and slander are two different things. Anonymity is not what is being protected IMHO as much as requiring a group or entity to give up anonymity with no legal basis such as libel.

Accountability comes in many forms. From the opinions of others of you, to being sued for liable, and many shades in between. Free speech doesn't entitle you to say anything you want and expect no reaction or consequences.

An example is when a comment sparks a boycott, or gets you fired from your job. Free speech does not protect you from those outcomes.

My logic does not say that. You cited an example of criminal prosecution for expressing an opinion. That is not free speech.

Sure you can. Free speech protects the speaker from prosecution based on beliefs or opinions, but does not free the speaker from accountability. The key exception would be protection of whistleblowers, press, and their sources. Slander does not fall into those veins.

Free Speech does not equate to guaranteed anonymity.

Two different things. Please pay more attention.

I am going to assume there is a idiot involved in delivering this news and that the budget is for replacing a lot more than just controls.

So, you are talking nuclear specific? Just so you 't avoid conveniently all other forms?

The customers generally pay waste costs through fees added to generation payed by the plants. Costs really are not that high, particularly calculated on a per KWH generated basis. Again, nothing close to what solar is getting on those terms.

But solar subsidies are unique in that a particular group of people get part of their power bill paid by the taxpayer, and many others have little or no opportunity to do so. So general industrial infrastructure support is one thing, giving money to just certain individuals is another.

That would what is called 'dodging the question'.

To answer your question, NO. As opposed to $$ directly received by the end consumer for a particular power source. Of course if you want to talk percentages of actual cost, not other source has benefitted nearly as much. If you want to talk $$ per KWH generated in return, solar is many times above any other source wrt getting $$$$. Not even remotely close.