I do believe in their right to say anything they like. They have a reputation to protect. How much reputation has an anonymous source? Are you going to believe an anonymous tip off until you have investigated it? If so bigger fool you.

"How much reputation has an anonymous source?" I think this might be key to solving the "anonymous libel" problem. Simply declare "anonymous libel" an oxymoron! We might argue that otherwise libelous statements, when made anonymously, carry a presumption of falsity, for otherwise the speaker would be willing to speak truthfully in his or her own person. Or, in other words, "Coward! He must be lying!" Could some of the folks with LEXIS or WESTLAW access check and see if there is any case law where the social status of the speaker is brought into question? Perhaps Tony Kidson could tell us some of the effects of libel law in the UK. The US law, which grew out of British law, seems to have gone in the direction of reducing the power of a libel complaint, while British law has done the opposite. I can't speak for the UK, but those who live there could. In California, a very promising decision occurred last week: the first test of the anti-SLAPP law (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation). The law is to prevent lawsuits designed to drain the resources of those exercising their First Amendment rights. It requires the plaintiff to show that they will probably win (I don't know what the wording of the actual test is). Defendants are entitled to recover attorney's fees and court costs. The suit was basically as follows. One comic book company published a Lensman comic. The heir to the Lensman rights stated in print that this company had not received permission. The comic book company sued the heir and the publisher of her words, claiming libel. The case was immediately dismissed based on the new anti-SLAPP law. The law is designed to protect First Amendment rights, but it looks like it will also have the salutatory effect of reducing libel claims generally. Eric

For some things, anonymity is sufficiently valuable that its use doesn't discredit the source: crime tip-offs, inside corruption revealing, etc. In many of those cases, however, the source would need to establish their validity,

"Externally verifiable" is the key phrase here. An anonymous allegation that Bush and Barb do unspeakable things their bedroom is much harder to verify than the location of Jimmy Hoffa's bones. The weekly posting for alt.whistleblower will contain an exhortation to include such information as can be verified without requiring the accused party to admit to something. Eric