See if this sounds familiar:
“Freedom of speech of the individual citizen must be based on the four basic principles of insisting on the socialist road, the dictatorship of the proletariat, the leadership of the party, and the Marxism-Leninism-Mao Zedong thought. The citizen has only the freedom to support these principles and not the freedom to oppose them…”

No it wasn’t Obama…yet. It was Wei Jing-sheng, a prosecutor in China. Our current/temporary Governor is also rumored to retaliate against people opposing her.

Fear of the “Crown” is increasing. My government calls me a terrorist and un american because I support the Constitution and speak out. Few can afford the luxury of public exposure.

But as an anonymous commenter, I can’t help but laugh when I chime in on some topic and another commenter immediately wants to know who I am. That’s just weird.

If I was the person who called Kirkpatrick a “nitwit” at that meeting does it really matter who I am? And if it does, who exactly does it matter to?

That is the trade off. No one should face a ghost and have to defend their honor against an untraceable and unidentifiable assault.

Some pen names are just for effect, or they may have a good reason at one time but no longer do so. Everyone knew Mark Twain was Samuel Langhorne Clemens.

George Eliot and George Sand wrote under men’s names when women writers weren’t often taken seriously.

But among political bloggers, I don’t see the reason for anonymity unless it’s part of a masssive art project. Indeed, sometimes I think this whole blog and all its contents are written by some Democratic party officials or indie liberal operatives in order to make Arizona conservative Republicans look ridiculous, given the nature of so many of the posts.

But there are other very conservative bloggers with views I find just as laughable who post under their real names.

The only reason I can think of is that people are worried about conflicts of interest they have in the real world or that they feel that knowledge of their views might negatively affect their employment or status in the community.

But given anonymity, people are not taking responsibility for their actions. And I thought one of the virtues of conservative philosophy was that people should take responsibility for their actions.

On the other side, I recognize that anonymous speech has had a role in American history. After all, “Publius” was credited with the Federalist Papers written by Jefferson, Madison and Jay.

The Supreme Court has also ruled repeatedly that the right to anonymous free speech is protected by the First Amendment. In McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission (1995), the Court wrote, “Protections for anonymous speech are vital to democratic discourse. Allowing dissenters to shield their identities frees them to express critical, minority views . . . Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. . . . It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation . . . at the hand of an intolerant society.”

And obviously in repressive societies, people challenging government policies of dictators must sometimes use pseudonyms or they would be killed.

So I guess it is a matter of how you balance out competing concerns. I certainly support anyone who wishes to post anonymously, but you have to understand that it raises questions in many people’s minds about the motives of the author.

You made Jamie’s point yourself, right?

Also, it makes me nervous my County Attorney is politically aligned with the far left RINO fringe of the GOP. Or, at least an attorney in his office is.

I only have observed the terrible articles authored by Cincinnatus.

Is this how it’s done… Silence citizens through intimidation who observe something wrong in government? Not a chance – and not this time!