Free speech is a basic right that brings with it a basic responsibility - you mustn't use your right to free speech to violate other people's rights not to have lies told about them or hatred and violence incited against them. Simple enough for most of us, but some people will always want to abuse that right - and some may do so via the Internet. The practicalities of libel law on the Internet may be exercising regulatory minds at present; but the basic principles are the same as for any other free speech. The same rules should apply. Would-be vigilantes and 'outers' argue that there are 'special cases' - paedophiles, for example, or the killers of James Bulger. Leaving aside one or two obvious questions (why just these and not other people guilty of the same or other offences? Who draws the line - and who checks the facts?), a quick look at the practicalities make the flaws in their undoubtedly emotive argument all too clear. In both cases, people coming out of jail will be monitored and assessed by police, probation and social services and other professionals. In both cases, if they are 'named and shamed', they may well (a) face attack, serious harm, even violent death - that's more violent crime, not justice; (b) go 'underground', precisely to avoid such a fate. That means police and professionals lose contact - so if they do pose any further risk, that risk is actually increased by their 'outers'. And of course, there's another, all-too-real danger, as the News of the World campaign and events across the country showed last summer. The wrong people harassed, burned out of their homes, bombarded with hate mail and threats, most famously when people couldn't tell a paedophile from a paediatrician (child doctor - big difference). The justice system, law enforcement agencies, child protection professionals and so on all exist for a reason. Sometimes, the righteous 'outers' should realise, it's best to leave it to the professionals.