I often see references to anonymous behaviour as cowardly or some other negative connotation. It is especially strange to me to see security professionals denigrate all forms of anonymous speech. Although there are risks to allowing a voice without a known identity, the risk of requiring an identity also has to be weighed.

Shoq Value gives an interesting (albeit lengthy) example of the balance.

At 10:47 (on May 29th), this email arrived, demonstrating nicely exactly why I remain anonymous. It’s because critics will always try to intimidate or silence people by any means they think are available to them.

Whereas the intimidating critics may themselves be anonymous, Shoq does not call them cowards or advocate for an end to their anonymous speech. Instead, the tool of anonymity is recognised as a double-edged sword.