Comment Re:Bill Hadley is going to be disappointed (Score 1) 233
Why should you be allowed to intentionally make false, damaging statements about somebody? Anonymously or otherwise? Current law says you don't have the right to do that, and I agree with the law.
Do you think it's okay to "anonymously" shoot somebody with a gun, or "anonymously" run over them with a car? If not, why should you be allowed to injure them any other way anonymously? It makes no sense.
As for "the powerful", if you are a "public figure" you have to show actual malice before you may demand reparations. Because as a public figure, there must be room for the public to comment about your actions.
But that's already the law.
I distinguish between speech, on the one hand, and shooting or running over someone, on the other hand, because speech is important to society. Our laws protect people who say things that are offensive, because sometimes the ability to speak freely is an important defense against tyrrany.
As long as a speaker remains anonymous, it is difficult to say whether there is "actual malice" involved. The only evidence we have is the words he wrote. If a public figure can out an anonymous speaker to determine whether or not there was "actual malice", the damage is done.
A person who has inside information about nefarious deeds, but who is, because of his position, vulnerable to retaliation, should be able to speak anonymously.