MARK KIESLING: Appeals court needs to uphold the rights of fools

The online version of a newspaper is a double-edged sword, particularly for those of us who write our opinions for a living.

Most if not all "papers," and I call them that loosely, allow folks who read the columns to comment on them via the Internet.

Anonymously.

Now, with most of the things printed in the paper, be it online or made from recycled trees, the comments are restricted to the nature of the article.

But with commentators (including yours truly), the comments can turn very personal. I'm not alone in having been accused of various unsavory things I have not done, and that's one of the reasons I just don't read the comments anymore.

I'm tempted to respond to them, and I don't feel like descending to the level of some of the commentators.

Well, all right. I do read them sometimes. But I bite my tongue and refrain from making snide comments correcting some of the idiots who write in.

The thing is, I have my name and photo on the online edition. You know who I am. You can (and do) stop me in the grocery store to praise or damn me.

But when you hide behind a screen name like "Cowpie1234," no one has any idea who you are. And believe it or not, your privacy is protected here so I cannot find out, which is as it should be.

Now, after all this verbiage, we get down to the nitty-gritty: The Indiana Court of Appeals is being asked to decide whether a newspaper can withhold the true identity of an anonymous online commentator.

At the crux of the case is the Indianapolis Star's refusal to release the true name of a commentator who calls himself (or herself) "DownWithThe Colts," who allegedly defamed the local Junior Achievement following a 2010 Star story about money missing from the organization.

Leave aside for a moment that the Colts need no help in descending into the ninth circle of football hell. They are perfectly capable of that all by themselves without the assistance of "DownWithThe Colts."

The Star argues that the identity is protected by the Indiana Constitution, the state's shield law and the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

And as much as I'd like to find out who some of these jokers are who get their jollies by posting out-and-out untruths about reporters, columnists and public officials, I have to come down on the side of the Star.

It's not a matter of newspapers sticking together. It's a matter of allowing free speech, as odious as it can be at times.

If a newspaper does not uphold the right of anonymous fools to speak, who will?

The opinions are solely those of the writer. He can be reached at mark.kiesling@nwi.com or (219) 933-4170.