There are some good reasons for anonymity in public discourse, including fear of reprisal by ones employer.

But, when people use anonymity to defame others, and speak with reckless disregard for the truth, the harm outweighs the benefits.

I suggest the Almanac stop profiting from this injurious activity and implement mandatory registration. They make money from this injurious behavior and make half baked attempts to delete some of it, but not before it drives hits to their message board.

The Almanac could still allow unregistered user participation by providing anonymous voting tools. The SF Chronicle has such a tool, though they recently converted that feature into one requiring registration.

Indeed, it's hard to find a reputable newspaper which allows anonymous postings regarding its content. Let me know if you find one ...

Whatever possible justification a citizen may have for seeking anonymity on other issues there is no justification for anonymity in a discussion of the responsibilities of a citizen - what reprisal could you conceivably expect and from whom for speaking your mind on this critical issue?

Put your name on your beliefs and be heard but don't hide behind a wall and toss words over the wall.

Here is my full posting:
Anonymous posters on this Forum have suggested that only residents of a defined community have the "right' to comment on issues occurring in "their" community.

My view is that all citizens share a collective responsibility to ensure that each and every individual community receives the scrutiny and the support which it deserves from any and every citizen who can help that community in its role of service. Do our individual boundaries of concern stop at some arbitrary line on the map? Does what happens in East Palo Alto or Menlo Park or Afghanistan not concern citizens who do not live in those communities? Are we truly so isolationist that we don't care what happens to other citizens in other communities? Should we turn our backs on issues that don't impact us personally but which in some small way effect the community of mankind?

I would welcome critical responses from those who think that we have no responsibility beyond ourselves, or our family, or our neighborhood, or our political jurisdiction, or even our Nation.

Convince me that we are all not in the same very big boat.

Having been a recipient of incredible personal attacks, I appreciate the chance to make anonymous comments. I prefer that others focus on my comments than on me. It is not always worth it to become a bullseye for target practice.
Like it or not, there are some very nasty people who vilify others, without even knowing them well.
There are other forums for making comments that are not anonymous, such as letters to the editor, letters to elected officials, speaking in public to officials. If required to disclose my name in this forum, I would stop nearly all of my participation.

Peter, I agree with you in what you say in a society which is not morally bankrupt, among other things.
Suppose, after making a comment about a specific person in a high place, resulted in a death threat which you could not prove came directly from the "specific person"?
Do you retreat or boldly persevere in spite of the consequences?
It IS quite possible.

R. Gordaon asks:"Suppose, after making a comment about a specific person in a high place, resulted in a death threat which you could not prove came directly from the "specific person"?

If I worried about that then I would stay in my home and shun the world - I choose not to live my life that way.

Bullseye states:"Having been a recipient of incredible personal attacks, I appreciate the chance to make anonymous comments."

Having been the frequent target of personal attacks I would much prefer that my attackers have the courage to identify themselves - if not to me at least the the publisher of the Town Forum.

I use a pseudonym for many of the same reasons others have stated.

While R. Gordon's question about "death threats" is provocative, there are obviously very few reported incidents worthy of Tony Soprano. I have been the recipient of some pretty menacing messages on this very web site but I do not live in fear, perhaps because they don't know who I am.

I think a far more likely consequence would be INTIMIDATION. It is not hard to imagine a patrol car appearing in your review view mirror as you cross the town limits on your drive home each afternoon. That would be unnerving.

Bulldog:
"But, when people use anonymity to defame others, and speak with reckless disregard for the truth, the harm outweighs the benefits."

Certainly true, Bulldog, and perhaps that is indeed happening in some cases.

But in the case of Mr. Carpenter, it is simply a case of calling a blowhard a blowhard. And I personally would do the same whether he uses his real name or an assumed identity - it's based on his comments and arguing style.

The Almanac calls that a "personal attack", mainly, I believe, because Peter does choose to use his real name - if he was just going by "Avid Brown Act Defender" for instance, I don't think they would view it as such.

But Peter chooses to make his real name public and, actually, based on his prolific commenting and actions - including often citing his past public offical postions - he really is something more than just your "average Joe" here - he's a psuedo-public figure a la a Morris Brown, for instance. And quite frankly, as such, he really should be subject to more "slings and arrows" than other posters. Unfortunately, the Almanac chooses to treat him with kid gloves - which is the exact wrong approach, as it is breeding resentment amongst the ranks of posters here - hence this thread, for instance.

Just Wandering - keeps wandering off the topic of "What is the reponsibility of a citizen?", and as usual contributes noting to the topic and simply spends her/his entire time attacking other people.
Sad, but very consistent.