> If you live in a nation with rule of law and wide ranging protections of freedom of speech like the US there is no need to be anonymous in the vast majority of cases.
I think you overestimate the practical value of these constitutional protections. Yes, US law allows US citizens to criticize their government in a way that would be unimaginable in China. But not everyone who prefers anonymity is trying to hide from an oppressive government. Most people are understandably reluctant to offend their employer, neighbors, friends and family, etc. even if they have a legitimate concern. These personal concerns are much more pressing for the majority of citizens than the possibility of FBI agents knocking on your door.
If you work for BP, You don't want to be caught arguing that offshore drilling should be heavily regulated, especially if you work in a state with at-will employment. Similarly, you don't want that city official to take revenge on you for blogging about his unprofessional treatment of you. You don't want your mom to find out that you run a blog about your life as a lesbian. You don't want your neighbor to find out that you complained on Reddit about his annoying behavior.
Little things like these add up and serve to discourage free speech even in mostly-free societies. Constitutional protections are not enough. Custom can be just as oppressing as evil communist regimes. You need to turn the goddamn society upside down before you can expect most people to blog with their real names, and that's not likely to happen anytime soon.
Well, all I’m pointing out is the basic truism that non-anonymous speech can and will in general be more trusted and that in many cases anonymity is not necessary for free speech.
Anonymity is sometimes necessary or desired but what it is definitely not is the beginning and end of free speech as was implied in the comment I was responding to.
As for "anonymity is not the beginning and end of free speech", I don't think the comment you were responding to said anything to that effect. It only said that taking away anonymity would also take away free speech. By admitting that "anonymity is sometimes necessary", you're basically agreeing with that comment. Anonymity surely isn't all there is to free speech, but without it, free speech would be severely hampered.
Ideally anonymity should not be required for free speech but I know currently in the real world it often does. I want to push for this to be fixed though. For example, I once thought of collecting things like Reddit AMAs and turning them into an Acid test that see if an organization can tolerate it when made non-anonymous.
I think you overestimate the practical value of these constitutional protections. Yes, US law allows US citizens to criticize their government in a way that would be unimaginable in China. But not everyone who prefers anonymity is trying to hide from an oppressive government. Most people are understandably reluctant to offend their employer, neighbors, friends and family, etc. even if they have a legitimate concern. These personal concerns are much more pressing for the majority of citizens than the possibility of FBI agents knocking on your door.
If you work for BP, You don't want to be caught arguing that offshore drilling should be heavily regulated, especially if you work in a state with at-will employment. Similarly, you don't want that city official to take revenge on you for blogging about his unprofessional treatment of you. You don't want your mom to find out that you run a blog about your life as a lesbian. You don't want your neighbor to find out that you complained on Reddit about his annoying behavior.
Little things like these add up and serve to discourage free speech even in mostly-free societies. Constitutional protections are not enough. Custom can be just as oppressing as evil communist regimes. You need to turn the goddamn society upside down before you can expect most people to blog with their real names, and that's not likely to happen anytime soon.