At 01:22 AM 9/3/96 -0700, James A. Donald wrote:

At 12:53 PM 9/3/96 -0700, Stanton McCandlish wrote:

...

EFF in generally does not issue extremist position statements, but is careful to examine the risks as well as the benefits, and look for pro-liberty solutions to those risks.

If the right to speak anonymously is an "extremist" position in the eyes of the EFF, then they are no friends of liberty.

It is hardly an "extremist" position outside of such countries as Cuba, Iran, or China.

It is the overwhelmingly mainstream position, not just among netizens, but when last heard, amongst supreme court judges and ordinary people in the street.

Not necessarily. The character of the anonymous speech is decisive. If you use anonymity to cloak harassment, for instance, the anonymity (which removes accountability) is a problem. The accountability issue is real and should be addressed, not evaded. -- Jon Lebkowsky http://www.well.com/~jonl jonl@hotwired.com