Why should free speech include the right to anonymous speech? The same ideological quarter that promote restrictions on speech - “not free speech, just hate speech” - also houses opposition to anonymous speech. Avatars and screen names are denounced as the tools of cowards, bullies and harassers. “If you’re willing to put it out there, you should be willing to sign your name.” But remember that the people who put freedom of speech into our Constitution did this not just to protect the rights of individuals to have their say and to defang the mob that might use numbers and intimidation to silence a minority or single voice, but also to remove a serious obstacle to initially unpopular ideas to being available for discussion. There are many reasons to choose to speak anonymously, and not just to protect onself from an overzealous mob attempting to prevent its accepted wisdom from being subject to an “Emporer’s New Clothes” moment. A writer may wish to protect loved ones. One may want to keep the focus on the message, and not muddy the message with details of personal life. A writer may have interests in several different, non-overlapping areas of interest, and not want writings on one area to turn off potential interest in another topic. Even a writer of noncontroverisal fiction may simply wish to keep personal privacy, or create a separation of professional and personal life. A writer may prefer to have a catchy name as part of the promotion of a body of work. Also, a fiction series may be published under one pen name, but actually written by multiple people. I think there is also a darker side to this demand that other people be willing to sign their names to every piece of expression they put out there. For example Candace “Red Pill Black”, in one of her videos regarding her “Social Autopsy” site, used the phrase “say it to my face.” This might be appropriate when someone you thought was a friend has done some hurtful gossiping behind your back. But when someo...