At 9:32 AM 11/15/1996, Adam Shostack wrote:

Most of the usual arguments about disallowing anonymity actually apply to a Parliment. There is a responsibility involved in the execution of power.

This is not to condone attacking children, or killing ones political opponents. For an MP to imply that something he wants to say will likely get him/his kids killed probably means that he wants to use the power of the state in some way likely to quite upset at least a few people. If this is the case, then allowing him to anonymously, and without responsibility, direct the power of the state is congruent to tyranny.

Please allow me to respectfully disagree. Let's consider another issue: recreational drugs. We can be pretty sure that a sizeable number of Congressmen use marijuana and see no reason for it to be illegal. Yet, to speak about it would be understood to be political suicide with possible legal repercussions. Were Congressmen able to speak anonymously, such an issue could be discussed. It is more likely that good policy results from discussion. Or, consider homosexuality. We can be pretty sure that a significant number of Congressmen are homosexual. Yet, to discuss it would be, for many, political suicide. Many other Congressmen support anti-discrimination laws for homosexuals, but are afraid to discuss it. Or, consider spending bills. The Congress is spending our money for us faster than they can collect it. Nobody seems to really want this to be happening, but they can't help it. Discussion of the issue may require alienating certain constituents or stating unpleasant truths which would affect a Congressman's relationship with other Congressmen. Speaking anonymously would allow Congressmen to simply speak the truth without fear of retribution, just like anyone else. If a small group of people are upset enough to kill somebody for what they say, I have difficulty immediately describing them as oppressed. I am making no statement regarding any particular group. What is more, I believe that political leaders should be subjected to the same laws as everyone else. Like many on this list, I do not believe the citizens have any sort of responsibility to speak non-anonymously. Peter Hendrickson ph@netcom.com