Whatever I have written, I’ve written it under my own name or as editor of this newspaper’s sister daily. I have never been afraid to share my opinion or comment about any subject I thought fit on the day. It is the basis of democracy; that journalists, like everybody else, are allowed to express their views, criticise and praise, suggest and recommend.

This is why I find it hard to accept that there are people who still hide behind noms-de-plume when they want to say something. I cannot understand why they are afraid to have their name next to their opinion. As a publishing house, we do not carry correspondence that is unsigned, except in rare circumstances where the item in question is a personal issue and in which no third parties are the subject of the letter. We have this approach because we believe that an article with a name carries more weight than one that is unsigned, and also because we believe in the rights of a free press.

To be honest, requests for anonymity are very few, and so it seems that our strategy is working.

Editors must take responsibility for items that are unsigned, and they can be taken to court if they print articles or letters that are considered libellous by aggrieved people. This is why editors must know who has written what, even if it appears under a nom-de-plume. If editors feel it is a genuine case, and are prepared to take responsibility for letters so signed, then that is their prerogative. But no sane editor would publish unsigned letters that contain “facts” that cannot be verified or which savagely attack others.

Editors are bound by journalistic ethics not to reveal the identity of those people who write to them confidentially, and whose letters they print under a nom-de-plume, in the same way as they – and all other journalists – are bound not to reveal the identity of sources that tip them off about stories, or give them inside information.

Some might argue that people want to remain anonymous in letters they write because technically they are not allowed to have their letters published in newspapers – such as civil servants on matters pertaining to the government service – or because they fear some kind of reprisal, whatever that may be.

My counter-argument is that in a society where freedom of expression is endorsed, and where the media – not only newspapers, but also television and radio – offers excellent opportunities for people to say what they think, this fear of reprisal should not exist.

We are not living in a country where the people’s views must be the same as those of its government, and where anyone writing or speaking against is considered to be a dissident and thrown into jail. And gone are the days when newspapers had to be hidden from view because one risked being punched in the face for daring to buy the Opposition’s daily.

We live in a society where different opinions are accepted, and they form a basis of discussion that more often than not leads to the correct decisions being taken. There will still be those who disagree, and they are still able to share their disdain, but that, after all, is what democracy is all about.

Sometimes editors receive letters that are unsigned, and although the contents might make a good story, they are discarded unless what is written turns out to be a tip-off that can be verified.

What is worrying is that, in this day and age of a social media, there is a growing phenomenon that needs attention – and this is the wide array of “stories” and “comments” that appear anonymously over the Internet.

As I said earlier, I am all in favour of freedom of expression, but there is a limit to everything, and anonymous comments that are made on websites and news portals, and which sometimes verge on being slanderous, cannot be condoned. One may know who the person or organization running that website or portal is, but many of the comments put online by third parties are not signed, use a nom-de-plume or else carry a fictitious name.

What is even worse are websites that are run anonymously – that is with no-one knowing the identity of those putting up “stories” and “opinions” on the website. This reduces their credibility, of course, but such websites can still contain material that tarnishes the reputation of third parties or puts them in a bad light. There have been occasions when people have felt slandered by comments made, and yet no action can be taken because it is impossible to ascertain who is behind these websites.

So, while on the one hand we have editors who are legally responsible for anything they print in their newspaper, and who can be fined for printing defamatory material, on the other hand we have anonymous websites that carry serious allegations and many untruths that get away with it because nobody knows who is behind them – and also because our current laws do not cover such circumstances.

But the worst case of all is having situations where Members of Parliament can say all they like in the House and get away with it – because of the parliamentary privilege they enjoy. There are some who have abused this privilege and made accusations about third parties, or invented stories about them, knowing that what they say in Parliament cannot be challenged in a court of law. That they do not repeat their offensive remarks outside the House means that what they said inside it is untrue, and this may be a small victory for the victims, but nonetheless some of the mud sticks.

I have heard only one MP – Censu Galea – who has spoken openly for parliamentary privilege to be removed. And for his efforts he was lambasted by some of his colleagues in the House, as was reported in The Malta Independent last week.

Mr Galea has my full support in this. He is fighting a one-man battle, because not one of the other 68 MPs has come forward to back him up. But he should not stop. It is he who is in the right.

[email protected]