I am not Anon

I do not think there has ever been any confusion on this; This site is a good example of why not. I post under my full name, standing firmly behind my opinions. The same thing goes for other websites. I am registered with my name on all of the sites on my Online Profiles section of the links page where it is possible. I do not hide behind a moniker or nom de plume. There are several reasons for this. It is not coincidental, it is by choice. I believe strongly in the right to freedom of speech, but I also believe that debate only really becomes useful when people understand that words may have consequences. I think that, by posting my opinion using my name, I keep myself honest and accountable. I do not post things I do not believe, and I do not post things solely to embarass someone.
 
A sometime participant in public debate, my opinions are my own. I claim them as such, and share them freely. I believe in sharing, free use and attribution, and I believe that, while copyright laws are useful, and sometimes necessary, there are better alternatives out there. Specifically, I think Creative Commons does a better job of defining exactly what rights you claim, and how you allow other people to use your content. The counter argument is that people can just go ahead and take your content. While that may, to some extent, be true, it is no more true than it would be if you claimed full copyright, unless you start using some fairly draconian measures to protect your content, measures which I, for one, am not comfortable with.
 
While I may disagree with the tactics and approach of Anon, I do understand them. I think doing things “for the lulz”, is the worst kind of reasoning there is. Doing them because you believe it is right, even if there is also an element of lulz is fine, but the root of it, the driving force and thought behind it, should always be that it makes the world better, that it is the right thing to do.
 
I am not Anon, but I think they have their place.