I am not defending Howard's sentiments, I am merely defending his right to hold un-popular beliefs.

Second, not all speech is protected (as anyone who chides people on not having read the Federalist Papers) should well know.

Third, simply being a public figure does not rescind one's right to privacy.

Fourth, my point was that those who claim to defend America's freedoms (namely freedom of speech) by telling people they don't agree with to shut up (or worse) are missing the point.

Lastly, I never, ever, said anywhere that those who do this don't have every right to do it. They do, but they should be every bit as prepared to take responsibility for what they say as they want Howard to be.

Really, you might want to educate yourself. The Constitution was heavily debated by those who signed it in *ANONYMOUS* pamphlets and editorials. It may surprise you but there's actually a very influential series of writings that were published anonymously as part of the debate over the Constitution. That collection is commonly referred to as THE FEDERALIST PAPERS.

Anonymous speech served a number of important purposes and has throughout U.S. history.

a) we're told that Howard is protected by the First Amendment, etc, etc., but then we're told that his critics just shouldn't be saying certain things.

b) Cuban's defense is incoherent…this is not a private matter since Howard is a public figure. This is no more a private matter between Howard and the Mavericks than were John Rocker's comments simply a private matter between Rocker and his team.

c) The article is really no different than Howard's critics. Howard's critics are pissed that he slammed the national anthem and think he went to far. The article defends a lighter version of Howard's views and says that “overzealous nationalism” is going to far.