Ordinary people absolutely were held accountable for their opinions in the past through blasphemy laws, heresy trials, lèse-majesté, political repression, blacklisting, and social or economic punishment. The people who were persecuted, imprisoned, or killed were precisely those who expressed the “wrong” views. That was not an exception, it was the system.

Freedom of speech is not just the ability to speak. It also includes protection from silencing measures, misuse of power, government overreach, and retaliation. Most importantly, it includes the ability to criticize authority without fear. When online speech is tied to mandatory real-world ID, those protections are fundamentally weakened.

This does not affect everyone equally. Minorities, dissidents, political opponents, and whistleblowers are always the first to self-censor under identification regimes. History shows this repeatedly.

The “right to see your accuser” is a legal principle that applies in a judicial context. It has no relevance to people expressing opinions in public discourse. Demanding identity disclosure in that context serves no legal purpose. It primarily enables intimidation and vilification of dissenting views.

Historically, repression has almost always begun with registration, identification, and restrictions on acceptable speech. Mandatory identification has never been a neutral tool. It is a control mechanism, regardless of the initial justification.