I have two words for you: "George Elliot." Anonymous publishing has a long and noble tradition. Check out this article: http://www.lrb.co.uk/v30/n10/eagl01_.html. Much of the revolutionary literature in both America and in Britain was published anonymously.
I CAN imagine a situation where you want to work at a conservative company, but don't want them to know that you have a home-based business doing genital piercing or that you support gay rights. Because those things make great interview topics of conversation, eh?
Meanwhile, the basic downside of anonymity remains: if freedom comes with responsibility, then how do you hold someone accountable for their actions if you can't identify them?
The point is that the only actions which people should be "held accountable for" are ones that are illegal. And even then, I have to say that I don't think it's a problem if the government has to do a bit of work to get that done.
It's also the freethinker's favourite approach to free speech. The US is a prime example - your employer can fire you for anything you say outside of their purview, like a 'blog or an article. What if you work for a company that doesn't support marijuana legalization or gay marriage or the separation of church and state or criticizing the government - because you're either with us, or with the terrorists? Well, clearly you're free to seek another job, you coward!
Slashdot Mirror
Bring back the BBS!
I have two words for you: "George Elliot." Anonymous publishing has a long and noble tradition. Check out this article: http://www.lrb.co.uk/v30/n10/eagl01_.html. Much of the revolutionary literature in both America and in Britain was published anonymously. I CAN imagine a situation where you want to work at a conservative company, but don't want them to know that you have a home-based business doing genital piercing or that you support gay rights. Because those things make great interview topics of conversation, eh?
Meanwhile, the basic downside of anonymity remains: if freedom comes with responsibility, then how do you hold someone accountable for their actions if you can't identify them?
The point is that the only actions which people should be "held accountable for" are ones that are illegal. And even then, I have to say that I don't think it's a problem if the government has to do a bit of work to get that done.
It's also the freethinker's favourite approach to free speech. The US is a prime example - your employer can fire you for anything you say outside of their purview, like a 'blog or an article. What if you work for a company that doesn't support marijuana legalization or gay marriage or the separation of church and state or criticizing the government - because you're either with us, or with the terrorists? Well, clearly you're free to seek another job, you coward!