Throwing up a few random examples doesn't further the debate very effectively. There are obvious differences between, for example, anonymous links in the infrastructure of the Internet and an identified end product hosting site. There are obvious differences between a local web hosting company, which has a specific commercial arrangement with an identified individual, and a generic hosting service that allows arbitrary, effectively anonymous individuals to post arbitrary material.

I'm not saying there should be no provisions in law to support the effective running of the Internet. I've never said that. I'm just saying that companies who want to establish a certain business model on the Internet shouldn't get a free pass just because it is difficult to run a business with that model while still complying with the same laws as everyone else. If that means some companies cannot continue, so be it: as I said before, I don't think anything of significant value will ultimately be lost, and I would rather that than effectively legislate certain businesses above the law just because they can't work out how to do things legally otherwise.

Your final comments are a straw man. Hacker News and Digg aren't republishing those articles, they're just linking to other sites that do.

There are the comments. I wouldn't be trivial to just link to them instead of actually hosting them.

Also, I am not certain this would be a good thing to always require content to have someone be accountable for it. If I want to express, say, a dissenting political opinion, I may want to be anonymous, and I may not want to pass the burden of accountability to someone else.

This is worth reflecting on it, however.

> If I want to express, say, a dissenting political opinion, I may want to be anonymous, and I may not want to pass the burden of accountability to someone else.

I am certainly not saying that no protected speech should exist. Indeed, I am all in favour of a law that protects certain classes of speech, with political views probably the most important class.

I just think that such laws should be crafted carefully, striking a balance between freedom of expression and protecting people from the harm when others abuse that freedom, and that once such laws have been made, they should apply on the Internet as much as anywhere else.

There are complications with jurisdiction in the on-line world, but there is no reason that most of the international community can't reach a consensus on these issues, just as they have on many others before.

I have always struggled with the idea of anonymity as a vehicle for free speech, for three reasons. Firstly, most people who think they are anonymous on-line really aren't, if someone tries hard enough to identify them, so it is often an illusion. Secondly, actively protecting anonymity automatically removes any responsibility from the speaker, whether or not what they are saying is within a protected area, creating a huge loophole in the laws. Finally, while anonymity may have a perceived value in protecting those opposing an undemocratic government, we don't have that situation anywhere in the west (to the point where political dissidents are routinely threatened or "disappeared"), and if we ever reach that point again, the correct response will be one of the three boxes after "soap".

What about sites like Wikileaks, where someone can anonymously post documents that are of political and social pertinence?

Wikileaks is, as far as I am concerned, the textbook example of a site that should not exist.

Firstly, if you need Wikileaks in the first place, you have bigger problems.

Secondly, Wikileaks actively tries to place itself above the law. No-one should be above the law.

Thirdly, there is little that has been revealed via Wikileaks that could not have been revealed in the traditional way via a free press. Wikileaks may make things marginally easier, but if you're in the business of leaking private stuff only if it's easy, maybe you should reconsider your world view.

Finally, before anyone comes along and tells me how much good Wikileaks does, consider this: they also released the private membership list of an unpopular political party, causing very serious consequences for many members of that party. Whether or not you agree with their politics, that sort of action is way over the line. What about the anonymity of those party members?

Something like Wikileaks has advantages and disadvantages, the former it being unbiased, unlike the free press, which, at least in my country, is ripe with political affiliation and business interests. And yes, the need for Wikileaks signals bigger problems. What bothers me about the loss of anonymity is the inherent loss of ways to fix those problems, but that may just be the necessary tradeoff for the evolution of the web.