For many of us the Internet means freedom. It means being able to dip your foot in a little bit of everything, but never having to actually be yourself.

You can be anyone you want online, just create a profile or e-mail address and play on. You can frequent sites you would never admit to even knowing about. You can find everything and share anything with untold numbers of people.

But gaining this freedom comes with losing our tact. In nowhere is this more obvious than in the comments posted by anonymous readers of blogs and newspaper Web sites.

“Worst article ever.”

“You suck.”

“I hope you die.”

What’s happening to our civility?

This question often comes to mind as I study the web and all the new philosophies surrounding it in a “Writing for the Web” course in the English department here at UGA.

So far, I’ve realized the very strength of the web is its free-wheeling format. It is an outlet to spot-off and express your opinions at the very moment you feel them. It is what draws us to this last remaining realm of the politically incorrect.

But this spontaneity, which makes the web so enticing, leads people to say things they would never think of saying in public.

Anyone who has written an article or even a post in a chat room or message board has experienced this.

You pour your heart and soul into a well-argued piece expressing your deepest feelings about something, only to see a curse-laden, personal attack posted hours, maybe even moments, later.

Inevitably the writer is using some sort of pseudonym, sometimes a screen name, other times a blatant attempt to escape responsibility under the guise of “anonymous,” or in the case of The Red & Black, an obviously false celebrity name.

Instead of standing behind their views, this unnamed army relies on hate to fuel their response. They never think of the person whom they are attacking, and instead lash out with words they would never use to someone’s face without expecting a fight.

The Red & Black has publicly faced this dilemma on their Web site for years.

A recent online war over a poorly written and obviously unedited letter to the editor led to days of hateful comments and an eventual change in policy for the Web site. They decided to no longer allow anonymous posting.

Now, one week later, they’ve had to do away with comments all together, since some people still couldn’t muster enough nerve to be themselves online.

With the loss of anonymous, and now all, posting, comes much-hated control over the Internet’s beloved Wild West mentality. But as much as we love our rough and tumble online world, we must keep in mind the real people behind it.

Those character assassinations so popular with the nameless crowd do affect their targets, no matter how much writers try to stay tough. We’ve all come to expect this harsh treatment online, but why should we? Why should a screen name bring out the worst in us? Why should anonymity be a cloak for reality?

Anonymous online readers don’t have to associate their comments with themselves, so of course they don’t have to admit that there is a person behind the words that have angered them.

When this anonymity is taken away and a writer has the nerve to actually stand up for his or her words, then the tact of the real world comes into play.

That’s why The Red & Black’s move is good one. While most of the web is built on anonymity, a newspaper simply shouldn’t encourage this.

The comment section on a news or editorial piece is a place for action and debate, but no one can take a point seriously, no matter how well-argued, when it comes from “Huh?”

And if readers can’t even be trusted to use a real name, why should they be trusted to share their views?

Anonymity is the insurance of weak points. Pseudonyms are the last ditch effort for the faint of heart to stand up for themselves.

And now these weaknesses have caused us all to lose one of the best forums for discussion available.

Hope you’re happy Kanye West.

- Stephanie Jackson is a senior from Birmingham, Ala., majoring in newspapers and English