Dear Editor,
I was perplexed by a number of things in the Dec. 11 Local Angle column (“Anonymoose Amy and the value of reader opinions”). These things all revolve around anonymity and individual responsibility.
I was baffled by “Anonymoose Amy’s” desire to be anonymous. She had done everything she could reasonably do to ensure that the editor would not be able to find out who she was. Why?
“Amy” took exception to something that had appeared in the paper and responded to it. She did this in a reasonable way. Not everyone will agree with her position, but it is perfectly valid. She has every right to express her views. So why the desire to be anonymous?
And this is what really perturbs me.
Over the centuries people have died and suffered for the right to have free speech. It is one of our fundamental pillars of society. But, along with the right to free speech is the responsibility that goes with it.
If you hold an opinion, you are entitled to express it, but you also have the responsibility to let your peers know you hold this opinion. This is how society protects itself against the bigots and liars in our midst.
People who hold untenable positions do not generally want to take responsibility for them or to be exposed as racists and bigots.
Free speech is in the forefront of the struggle for democracy. It is how an intelligent populace frames debate that allows society to move forward.
In some countries anonymity is a necessary protection against the tyrannical forces of government. I would argue that the right to state publicly what I believe, without fear of reprisal, is even more important than the right to vote.
But “Amy’s” letter does not fit this description. She is not going to suffer persecution for her opinion, unless perhaps she thinks her arguments are not valid!
By seeking anonymity “Amy” does two things. Firstly, she diminishes the validity of her arguments by not being publicly prepared to stand by them, and more importantly she diminishes the struggle for free speech that continues to be fought in various parts of the world.
I was also perplexed by Mr. Naylor’s decision to publish the letter in his column. The Reminder has a policy that correspondents need to identify themselves for their opinions to be publicly expressed. This is a policy.
Just because Mr. Naylor thinks that “Amy’s” letter deals directly with his editorial should not mean that the policy can be changed. His article dealt with issues that he articulated well.
There will be people who are very supportive of his position. Would they be entitled to respond anonymously to “Amy’s” letter? I would be shocked if they were!
Anonymity in the public domain gives rise to gossip, lies, bigotry and intolerance. Society would be better served if anonymity was banned from all public forums.
Taking ownerships of our values and opinions is an important step in constructing a better society.
Buz Trevor
Denare Beach
