Next Score View the next score


    Some are unworthy of the protection of anonymity

    Tom Keane (“Not just for the witless,” Op-ed, Aug. 27) draws the two comparisons frequently made in favor of anonymity in online comments sections of newspapers and magazines: to the Founders writing under such names as “Publius” and to whistle-blowers such as Deep Throat.

    Keane neglects to mention that the publications themselves took responsibility for what people like Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay wrote — something akin to unsigned editorials that serve as a newspaper’s stand.

    Keane is criticizing today’s publications for simply wanting to know the identity of writers whose voices they
    convey — something that papers in the American colonies did.


    Comparisons to whistle-blowers are even more specious. Whistle-blowers add information not otherwise available.

    Get Arguable in your inbox:
    Jeff Jacoby on everything from politics to pet peeves to the passions of the day.
    Thank you for signing up! Sign up for more newsletters here

    They seek to initiate.

    Anonymous trolls react to what is already there, usually with ridicule, dismissal, and mudslinging.

    They seek to terminate.

    Keane invokes the First Amendment. Since it was conceived to insure the political health of the nation, a medical metaphor should be relevant and useful: When doctors operate to keep our blood flowing, do we want them to let the parasite that has been sucking us dry remain in place?

    Jack Garvey

    Plum Island