We have never had "free speech" in it's purest sense. It is, for example, illegal to speak about violently overthrowing the United States Government. Another example is slander, which is what I believe this ruling is all about. There are instances where hiding behind anominity (is that spelled right?), to protest injustices makes sense, but should that cover attacks on people or groups because their opinion is different from yours? That smacks a little of terrorism. BTW, I generally oppose censorship as a principle. With age, I find it harder not to look at both sides.

I do have a problem with whether this Hvide fellow was in fact defamed and suffered any damage as a result. It would seem very pertinent in this case. No injury, no crime, no divulging of names.