Anonymous, Cute names, and censorship

Bear with me on this blog deal until I figure it out please. Casey just left me hanging, and I am like a chimp with a hand grenade trying to figure it out.
I agree with Ben, 1000% on anonymous and "Cute names" having an opinion or idea on anything. It is always used as a cloak to hid behind, when taking shot's at somebody, or so you can't question their qualification's in a debate. The rare instance when it might be acceptable is in the example of repercussions from an employer. Had it not been for "deep throat" we may never have learned about Watergate. What will change in the circus if we are afraid to express what may be wrong. Will it change, or will we always "patch" it with, the tradition of it always being that way.
I disagree with any type of censorship 1000%, regardless of who is on the throne, or in the seat of power. History tends to get written wrong, or worse yet, written in a "spin" style, spun in the direction you want it to go. There is a reason Monarchy's were overthrown, dictator driven out, etc. Censorship was one of those main reasons. Even a president in a democratic society has a series of checks and balances to keep him from censorship and absolute rule. The CEO has a board of directors to "help" him with his decisions. And look what happened to Enron. Because someone "owns" something or "it is his" does not give him the right to change, or write history as he see fit. Worse yet, "decide" who or what can be critiqued? It's our history, not his. The less you depend on anonymous and "cute name" to help with the writing of history, the more accurate and less self serving it will be for future generations, when they try to figure out "what happened here." We have an example of "changing the direction" of a picture, once a comment is censored, from Buckles Blog coming up. Watch for it.
Wade Burck