In fact, I refuse to reply to the rest of your comment as it provides no value whatsoever. You have done nothing but attempt to flame, launch false accusations, and cast phony, ill-informed judgements. Your comments are so full of ignorance and self-discredidation it is utterly astounding.

You’ve formed no valid arguments and instead choose ad-homimem attacks, slippery slope fallacies, and even a hint of a strawman fallacy.

I’ve got news for you: Free speech isn’t something to be exclusively permitted when it falls within your narrow little view of what is ‘acceptable’ free speech. It’s not just for whistle-blowers, it’s not just for exposing corruption, it’s for ANYTHING that ANYONE wants to say, fact or fiction, respectful or rude, and regardless of if it meets the approval of moralists such as yourself. THIS is the reason anonymous speech is the cornerstone of free speech.

Regulated speech != Free speech, no matter what spin you put on it. If ANYONE gets to decide what is acceptable and impose punishment for uttering what is not, then only a gullible fool would call it “free speech”.

It’s people like you that want to impose your morals and ethics on others and then ride in on your high-horse to sit in petty judgement, and this is why it’s best to simply bypass such nonsense and be fully anonymous. Then there is no worry about who likes what you have to say and who doesn’t. The moralists can sit and spin.

If someone wants to do some irrational “mudslinging”, they should have the ability to do it anonymously, and WILL have this ability whether you like it or not. Go back to kindergarten and suck your thumb behind teacher’s skirt if you need protection from all the free speech and information. Maybe you can join this politician lady that filed the lawsuit mentioned in the article.

And BTW, if you think the “courts are trying to protect against” … “oh, that MP sucks”, then you REALLY have no clue. Perhaps you need to actually read the decisions that have been penned by the justices to truly understand the crux of these cases.

Regardless, no matter how much it upsets you, internet anonymity has been available for years and is only getting more and more practical for the little people. Oh the humanity! LOL

Just because there’s an opportunity doesn’t mean you really need to take it. Telling someone what you really think doesn’t have to be rude. You can show greater intelligence by responding or commenting without such phrases “oh, that MP sucks.” That’s what the courts are trying to protect against.

If you are a whistle-blower, why would you just list profanity and insults against executives? What good would that do?

So, “call people names, spread rumours, threaten people’s lives…” is really not want we want protection against because none of that is actually helpful with whistle blowing or exposing someone’s corruption.

If you use TOR, or a trusted VPN, you make the courts and everything else IRRELEVANT. Then it doesn’t matter what the laws or anyone else says. Why subject yourself to the petty whims of bubble-butt busy-body authoritarians if you don’t have to?

I think people are really waking up to the fact that the interbutts are not anonymous unless YOU take proactive steps to make it that way.

I urge everyone to familiarize yourself with anonymizing technologies, and then tell everyone what you REALLY think.