Their very existence teaches us something about the spectacular ethical ignorance among so many today. Note the careful ethical analysis Alfredo Castillo, the co-creator of peoplesdirt.com, as he described his resolution of the question, "Would [creating this website] make sense, and is it right, is it wrong, morally?" He concluded that there was “a need” because "there is no avenue for people to express their feelings, their emotions and their secrets . . . anonymously."

Mr. Castillo has, apparently, never heard of personal journals and diaries, which have been serving this exact need, safely and efficiently, about as long as written communication has existed. So he and his partners decided to inflict this cyber-tool of personal attack and degradation on the world without adequate thought or research, if one takes seriously his claim (and I do not) that he really gave a tinker’s damn about the ethical implications of what he was doing. He also described the purpose of his site incompletely and dishonestly, for the “need” being served is not, in fact, a “need” at all, but a desire, and a base one at that.

Some people desire to attack, embarrass, hurt and denigrate others without risk or consequences, without confronting their victims or giving them an opportunity to respond. They are cowards, bullies, and thugs. They are internet equivalents of drive-by shooters, snipers and vandals. Like the sick and despicable creators of computer worms and viruses, such people take joy in causing pain to others because it makes them feel powerful. There is no valid “need” here. Society does not “need” its members to have “avenues’ to denigrate others without accountability.

“peoplesdirt” specializes in colleges and high schools. Laughably, Castillo argues that his site “could come to save people in the future." His theory apparently is that by allowing individuals to attack their imagined enemies by anonymously labeling them sluts or imbeciles or pot-heads or infected with pernicious diseases, his site releases tensions that might otherwise result in a physical attack. Yet strangely, nobody who has ever received an anonymous letter full of hateful diatribes has reacted by thinking, “Boy, that’s a relief! Now that this creep has blown off steam, I have nothing to worry about!” As transparent rationalizations for rotten conduct go, Castillo’s attempt to recast his slimy enterprise as a public service belongs in the Rationalizer’s Hall of Fame.

He likes the traditional rationalization for sites like this too: “It’s free speech.” Yup, it’s free speech: the government can’t outlaw anonymous libel and rumor-mongering. That makes these vile websites with “dirt” in the address legal, but it doesn’t make them good, right, or harmless. In Texas, a paralegal is suing “the dirty.com” over an anonymous February post that portrayed her, using her name, as unattractive and infected with herpes, among other negative descriptions. Most legal experts don’t give her much chance of prevailing. The students who have been similarly slurred on “peoplesdirt,” according to the Post, sometimes laugh the attacks off. Others want to change schools. But you can’t hide from the internet, unlike the bathroom stalls and subway walls that used to be the primary sources for claims that “Brenda is easy” and “Burt has crabs.” Will college recruiters read the anonymous attacks? Will potential employers? These are lasting wounds, and potentially ticking time bombs as well.

The worst potential consequence of these anonymous attack sites, however, is that they will become accepted and institutionalized. This will mean that the conduct they enable---the cowardly, mean-spirited, on-line anonymous demeaning of individuals’ dignity, actions and character---will be routine, normal, and standard. The internet has already created a generation of people who think legitimate political discourse includes vilification, personal insults and ridicule, and its next accomplishment may well be building a society where anonymous and gratuitous cruelty is standard practice.

I hope not. One way to make sure this doesn’t happen is to make the creators of blogs and websites that have been designed to encourage such conduct legally responsible for what their users post. Give them 48 hours to take down any inappropriate, derogatory or cruel post unless it is backed by a valid name and e-mail address. Websites should be held responsible for anonymous posts that constitute libel, if the site’s purpose is to facilitate them.

Sometimes the law has to give ethics a little encouragement.