"jebldmm", or is that "ejb"?

It is understandable that within a constricted social environment (China, Nazi-Germany, North Korea to name but three) where one might suffer mental or physical torment for speaking out, one would want to exercise their protests through free speech and remain anonymous doing so, in order to avoid the repercussions of being incarcerated or tortured or killed for their views.

Oh but being fired from a job, not getting hired in the first place, having a grade lowered by a professor, or other punishments are acceptable to you? People use Google all the time and in a viciously PC social-political environment, controversial comments, however factually correct or reasonable, can threaten one's livelihood.

Moreover a significant number of Western 'democracies' now have vague 'hate speech' laws, including Canada, Britain and Germany. They won't torture you but going to jail or being fined is a viable threat. It is very disturbing that you can't look past corporeal punishment in your assessment.

In all other cases, we are bound by honor and the courage of our convictions to ensure that we are accounted as responsible for the words that we wield. It is that accountability and that willingness to stand up and identify ourselves as the authors of our beliefs that adds weight and seriousness to those views.

"ejb", you are flagrant hypocrite in the fact that your screenname is not your real name and thus obscures your identity as much as anonymous postings. You have chosen not to identify yourself when you have had every opportunity to do so.

In that regard, anything voiced anonymously by anyone, outside the limits of a totalitarian environment, is to be regarded automatically as a lie or without rational substance.

To dismiss an idea as being "without rational substance" because it is offered anonymous is a perverse relative to accepting an argument from authority, which is recognized as the weakest form of argument. An idea stands or falls on its own merits, the speaker should ideally be irrelevant. To say that an anonymous posting should be "regarded automatically as a lie" is a sign of a frighteningly closed mind. Really, that is one of the most intellectually immature statements I have ever seen made at Salon. Numerous writers, even in free societies, have chosen to use nom de plumes and other identity obfuscating measures. Think of the Federalist Papers for an example in the American context.

Salon, in reflecting the virtues of an openly democratic society where free speech is worshiped as an inalienable right, does not pose a threat to the mental or physical well-being of it's contributors, and should insist on accountability for contributed views through some unique identification, if not for Salon's sake, then for the sake of it's contributors who do believe in standing up for what they say.

"where free speech is worshiped as an inalienable right". Yeah, some people will believe anything I guess. You're one of those 'I support free speech, but...[all the forms of speech you oppose]' people aren't you? Making writers identify themselves would just help punish people through extra legal means for the comments they make.

If this isn't a reasonable thing to do, then perhaps the editors could tag every anonymous letter with a subtext that reads: "The author of this letter refuses to accept responsibility for their words, and the content is therefore deemed weightless and irrelevant".

If you can't stand for what you say, you shouldn't be standing up to say anything at all.

Once again why do I get the impression that you salivate at the chance to hold someone 'accountable' for voicing their opinion? You babble about "honor" and "responsibility" but it seems like a ploy to keep radical or unsettling comments down. Is this the new trend for leftist enemies of free expression?

jebldmm wrote:

You wouldn't think so based on the media and the right wingers. They talk about "illegal immigrants" as if they were vermin who needed to be either kept out of the U.S. or eradiated.

Let's see, you start with an absurd strawman argument which envokes Nazi terminology (e.g. "vermin"). In fact you actually want us to demonise the same "the media" which has moved from using "illegal" to the phrase "undocumented" immigrant so as not to offend? And you want us to overlook that some of the "right wingers" include religious fundamentals who may not have come here legally. So is a homophobic, misogynistic illegal immigrant from the Muslim world OK to disapprove of, or does that make me some kind of vile hate-monger?

I have to keep reminding myself that we're talking about human beings who want to work so that they and their families can have better lives, not freeloaders who are out to take advantage of the generosity of U.S. citizens.

Claiming an entire group "want[s] to work" seems a very dubious assertion, especially when said group is as extraordinarily diverse as immigrants. Obviously the small number of legal and illegal immigrants who run criminal enterprises are not big on lawful employment. And who says they all have "families" whose lives to "better"? Or is that some racial stereotyping that all Latin Americans (or East Asians) are family-oriented? I mean maybe someone comes here to get away from their repressive family or just to enrich themselves?

This sort of mindless, uncritical praise does nothing to foster a more mature public debate on immigration.