March 19, 2013Dear Sir,As you are well aware, there has been a lot of public debate surrounding a recent letter in your newspaper. As you reported, this letter has prompted calls to end anonymous publishing entirely (as well as anonymous blogging on your website?) While I think the controversial letter was repugnant, as well as quite immature in its logic, there are very good reasons for continuing with a policy of allowing anonymity.There is a popular theory in the law of defamation called the ‘Chilling Effect’. Broadly, this theory holds that public debate will be negatively impacted if one can easily sue the media for defamation. The danger lies in the very real possibility that media outlets will be reluctant to publish questionable yet important stories, which results in the public being uninformed and debate being greatly reduced. Though this theory pertains to defamation law, similar results will occur if anonymous letters are prohibited.While it is probably true that some people wish to hide behind a pseudonym in order to be malicious, this concern is greatly outweighed by valid reasons for withholding one’s real name. After all, some people rather not be judged by their coworkers, peers, etc, for any of their unconventional opinions, just as there are those who are merely bashful. In all probability, these people will no longer add their opinions if they are prevented from doing so anonymously. This possibility is exacerbated when one considers Bermuda’s uniquely small size (which is also why we should not look to practices in other jurisdictions for guidance). This leads to an unfortunate and unacceptable ‘Chilling Effect’ on debate surrounding matters of public interest.As one of Bermuda’s main media sources, I call on you to ardently resist these proposed changes. While nobody will ever agree with every published letter, everyone should agree that the stifling of free speech and public debate is unacceptable and has no place in our society.ROGER MONIZ JRLondon