if anonymity is permissible—or, even stronger, desirable—then it seems to me that bans can be easily evaded. One can say “they shouldn’t be evaded!”, but for me it sounds self-defeating to support a norm and at the same time encourage an easy way to evade it. But yeah, legal systems are full of instances of that—but they are often recognized as “bugs”.
I do not think the issue here is that Kemp & Cremer intended to actually evade a ban imposed on Torres, but that their accusation might have been unfair—because it’d be proper to criticize their post given its origins.
Maybe I didn’t quite understande the point, but:
if anonymity is permissible—or, even stronger, desirable—then it seems to me that bans can be easily evaded. One can say “they shouldn’t be evaded!”, but for me it sounds self-defeating to support a norm and at the same time encourage an easy way to evade it. But yeah, legal systems are full of instances of that—but they are often recognized as “bugs”.
I do not think the issue here is that Kemp & Cremer intended to actually evade a ban imposed on Torres, but that their accusation might have been unfair—because it’d be proper to criticize their post given its origins.