To the editor:
In a recent editorial column (Editor Ray Lamont's "Why Did My Newspaper Do That?," Saturday, June 16), the Times makes a very persuasive case for commentators to be allowed to use screen names instead of true names.
Why should anonymous submissions be subject to censorship?
Like them or not, their thoughts advance the discussion and occasionally provide the paper with a good news tip.
The writer's point of view was so compelling that some of us want to see what we are missing. Not everyone has the time for or access to online chat rooms and websites. Printing a selected sample of the anonymous comments in the paper would enable the Times to demonstrate its willingness to put its money where its mouth is — the money being income from subscribers and advertisers.
After all, it is the Times who readily champions the sunshine concept of the open meeting law. Nothing hidden behind closed doors or cyberspace.
In standing up for more participants to better the debate, the Times can't go halfway.
Canterbury Lane, Rockport