George,

There is a significant difference between saying people ought to be responsible when exercising the right of free speech and requiring people to be responsible. To whom are we going to give authority to decide what is responsible speech and what is not? I agree with the statement, "[w]ith freedom comes responsibility," but I would add that freedom includes individuals deciding for themselves what is a responsible exercise of free speech.

That principle also applies to the issue of anonymous speech. The First Amendment not only protects your right to speak; it also protects you from being forced to say something you would rather not -- including your name. Otherwise, many would choose not to speak out for fear of government reprisals. Indeed, during the civil rights movement the NAACP argued and won this principle before the U.S Supreme Court when government officials in Alabama attempted to force the organization to reveal the names of its members.

Consider also persons suffering from AIDS who wish to offer a victim's perspective on the disease. Should they be silenced because they wish to keep their identities unknown due to common misperceptions about the disease? Or what about the corporate whistleblower who has knowledge of a product defect that could threaten lives? How many times have we heard but not seen a person speaking to a television news reporter? Is it irresponsible for those persons to keep their identities a secret when identification would result in some sort of reprisal? These are but a few examples in which anonymity encourages responsible rather than irresponsible speech.

While it is true that visitors to the chalkboard are free to express themselves anonymously, they are also free to identify themselves. They have the freedom to choose. Of course the freedom to speak anonymously will encourage a few among us to express themselves irresponsibly. But that seems a small price to pay for the freedom that allows the majority of people -- including the visitors to the chalkboard -- to speak in a responsible and considered manner.

There are also those who feel that the chalkboard is an inappropriate monument to the First Amendment because visitors have the ability to erase the comments of others. While it is true that erasing another's comments is contrary to the ideal of free speech, it is not at all at odds with the dictates of the First Amendment. The constitutional right of free speech is only a limit on the government's authority to control what we think or say. An act of censorship by a private citizen simply does not implicate the First Amendment. Does that mean we should encourage private acts of censorship? Absolutely not. Indeed, the most effective response to objectionable speech is not censorship, but a statement as to why the speech is wrong or inappropriate. If a private citizen does choose to censor, however, there is nothing in the First Amendment prohibiting him from doing so. The recognition of that legal reality is far from an endorsement of censorship.

It should be pointed out, however, that even when one chooses to erase the comments of another on the chalkboard, that act may have the ironical effect of promoting the right of free speech in a number of ways. For example, anyone whose comments are erased will probably contemplate why and either (a) conclude that his comments were indeed inappropriate or, more likely, (b) be surprised that someone felt his comments deserved erasing. When the latter happens, it is probably a safe bet that the person censored will never erase the comments of someone else. There is nothing like being censored to turn you into a true free speech advocate.

And what about the person thinking about erasing the comments of another? Too often people make a statement such as "I am all for free speech but..." just before engaging in an act of censorship, apparently believing that their preface removes the stain of censorship from their act. Persons who erase something off a monument dedicated to the right of free speech, however, are going to be denied that self-deception. They will be forced to both confront the consequences of their actions and contemplate what it truly means to be "all for free speech." As a result, maybe, just maybe, they may choose to put down the eraser and pick up the chalk.

Josh Wheeler (electronic mail, January 22, 2002).