Being able to state your views without stating your name is a favorite way for a lot of people to post their views on websites. The ability to say what you want to say without fear of personal backlash or condemnation is very appealing.

CNN has reported that several newspapers, including the Buffalo News (New York) and the Attleboro Sun Chronicle (Massachusetts), have decided to not allow anonymous or guest postings anymore.  Their reasoning is this: to “raise the level of discourse” on-line.  Gone, they hope, will be the racist rants and the hateful diatribes.
 
Commenters will now be required to register information like their name, address, city, phone number, email and/or credit card number (for a one-time activation fee of 99¢).  Only your name and city will be published alongside your comment. Having to use your own name on-line, they believe, will help to ensure that people will think twice before making rude or offensive comments. As a basic policy, print newspapers will not publish a Letter to the Editor without that basic information.

Most websites already require a username and email to participate in discussions. Many also have User Agreements that all participants must adhere to or get banned.  Additionally, anyone can “flag” a comment as inappropriate or offensive.  But sometimes the belligerent and bellicose does get through.

These plans may raise the “level of discourse”, but have already lowered the level of participation. Should websites allow the choice of anonymous or guest postings?  What are the benefits of having, to some extent, all participants identified? What does this mean for the future of on-line engagement?