Is anonymity really the solution? That basically says it's OK to say anything about anyone because there will never be any redress.
I'd suggest that there should be some protection against defamation, the issue is that the laws that exist in the UK at the moment do a poor job of differentiating between defending against genuine defamation and what is frankly an abuse of process (using the process and it's associated costs to intimidate).
1. UK != England and Wales. (Scottish law is radically different -- based on defamation rather than libel/slander -- and oddly enough, Scotland isn't a libel shopping destination.)
2. The English libel law (which is what's up for reform this year) was pushed through in the 18th century as an alternative to the dueling field for blue-bloods with swords to defend their honour. It succeeded admirably in reducing the death rate, but the challenge/defense model implicit in a mediated replacement for dueling between peers doesn't transfer well to a situation where we have corporations using it as a vehicle for SLAPPs.
I'd really like to see, as a principle of law, the axiom that corporations do not have a personal reputation that can be impugned-- that reputation only applies to living human beings. As an example of why, consider the McLibel Case: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/McLibel
> I'd really like to see, as a principle of law, the axiom that corporations do not have a personal reputation that can be impugned-- that reputation only applies to living human beings.
So when someone goes to forums and posts outright lies about a company (e.g., claiming that the company's software surreptitiously loads child pornography on to your computer so they can blackmail you), what recourse (if any) do you think the company should have?
The corporation speaks with a much louder voice than the individual.
(Moreover, web fora are the internet equivalent of a crowded bar: the law is a very blunt instrument indeed when it comes to dealing with words uttered in the heat of the moment during an ongoing conversation.)
Anonymity comes with a price though. You don't have any sort of reputation to build on when making claims about other people. If you want people to have more of a reason to believe what you say, putting your name on it should carry more weight. That should be the balance here.
2. It's unfortunate that the default position is encroachments on rights, requiring active defense for their preservation.