NoNukes writes:
I will note that the majority of the people here don't give out their names regardless of how strongly the hold onto their opinions.
That's a different issue. What we say here has a bigger (potential) audience than Oprah. If I wasn't anonymous here, any loonie out there could come knocking on my door. (In fact, I have met two people on two different forums whom I deduce live very close to me.)
What I am saying is that I will stand by my views to your face, or anybody else's. If you want to sneak around behind my back, I can't stop you.
NoNukes writes:
In any event, the issue is not whether peer review in general ought to be changed, but whether a court can force an anonymous review site to give up names because someone has gotten bad reviews that they claim are defamatory.
That's the specific example given but the topic seems to be about the broader principle of openness in peer review.
NoNukes writes:
In an ideal world, speech would battle more speech. But in the world we live in, sometimes free speech without anonymity is essentially impossible.
The only way to move
toward an ideal world is to take a step forward, even if it means taking a risk.