I read your publication every morning and particularly value hearing the voices of community members as expressed through letters to the editor. In addition, I value those insights and opinions offered in response to those letters, creating a public forum of sorts.  

However, though letter writers are required to identify themselves, using their real names, responders are not required to do so.

The result is that many of the anonymous responses veer far from the original letter’s focus leading readers way off topic; they express erroneous information, (i.e., I’ve never held a government job); are just nasty and pointless, are highly critical in tone, and occasionally border on character assignation. For these reasons, of late, I’ve stopped looking at the responses. Most have become a waste of my time or get my day off to a discouraging start. 

Allowing these responses without personal identification seemingly encourages negative blather and, more importantly, likely stifles many potential letter writers from sharing their thoughts and opinions. Who wants to expose one’s self to public abuse?

The result is that unidentified responses actually shut down honest and open communication, which is so important, especially at the crossroads where we find ourselves today.

Instituting a policy change — insisting that you will only publish responses if the writer’s real name is included — would likely significantly reduce the nonsense, the negativity, while increasing the number of thoughtful exchanges, thus benefiting our communities. 

Those steeped in constitutional law or history etc. can further my point or debate it. But quite simply, I believe that if you can’t put your name on your response, you shouldn’t be submitting it, and PenBay Pilot shouldn’t be publishing it. 

Please rethink your policy. 

You’ll be doing our communities a favor.

Mary Orear lives in Rockport