Suit seeks anonymous commentator

 It isn’t often that I am encouraged by a defamation lawsuit. You see, I am pretty big into free speech, if you haven’t noticed. I also was once sued for defamation. It wasn’t pretty and the allegation wasn’t true. A federal judge booted the case out on its res gestae where it belonged.

 But the legal action I am talking about is one that could help erase the scourge that cheapens modern mass communication and raises the nation’s stupidity quotient. That would be hateful and libellous open comments on articles published on the Internet that are written by anonymous correspondents.

 The case involves a Kentucky attorney who is suing Kentucky.com, owned by the Lexington-Herald Leader. A person using a screen name allegedly made defamatory comments against this attorney. The lawyer is defending a man charged with murder and violating a domestic violence order. The attorney says she just wants the real name of the person who made the comments so that she may take further legal action. She is, however, seeking unspecified damages plus those for pain and suffering.

 The editor of the paper said the person making the comments was banned from the site and that the comments were removed. The paper is contacting that person to see if they want to invoke their rights to anonymous free speech.

 Lest you think I may show some hypocrisy here supporting other forms of free speech but not anonymous free speech, rest assured that I am not. But there are defamation laws and libel laws. That I know for sure and even though I may not like those laws when they are misused against me to dig into deeper pockets, I feel those statutes are there for long-held principles against bearing false witness against one’s neighbor.

 My agreement with this suit is for much less loftier reasons though. I simply am sick and tired of seeing a bunch of racist, ignorant, idiots dominate these comment boxes, saying what they want about whomever or whatever most often without facts to back them up.

 What is even worse are newspapers and other media platforms that use sites clumsily disguised as not a part of that media outlet which are used to start or build upon controversies employing subtle, but incitable material. See: race baiting.

 Newspapers, especially, should reflect the society that surrounds it. But papers should also mirror the respectfulness and good manners that are at the core of a civilized society.

 I don’t wish for any financial ruin for anyone in the aforementioned lawsuit. I also hope it don’t lead to judicial precedent that would threaten free anonymous speech. Sometimes, that is the only way some people can comment without facing some kind of physical or economic danger. But I do wish such an action could remind those with some sort of a media mouthpiece — be it The New York Times or eight feet deep — that anonymous speech need be responsible speech.