Straight Talk is no more, or won’t be after Sunday.

The volume of distasteful (and potentially libelous) comments made under the excuse of anonymity has brought us to this conclusion: In the age of the Internet, there are enough outlets for anonymous comment, for people willing to express an opinion but unwilling to own it.

Anonymous comments have long been our bane. And because we won’t publish some of the nasty or unsubstantiated comments that come through Straight Talk, the caller will call again and complain. Repeat callers have often been a problem. One caller’s personal best is 26 calls in a row, all saying the same thing. There is a caller who tries to disguise her voice to make it seem as if the identical views are coming from different people. And there are the callers who swear, call others names and make comments that are racist, insulting or without any merit.

There are the callers who want to thank someone, or express a legitimate and civil view and the callers who obviously just want someone to hear their voices. We regret they won’t have this outlet anymore.

But there are more who don’t understand what Straight Talk was for — not to call names, not to complain about a private business, not to gossip about the preacher’s affair, not to spread rumors and not to threaten one’s neighbor.

Some of the calls have been downright scary.

Straight Talk’s last day of publication will be Sunday. On our publication schedule, that means any call made after 4 p.m. on Friday will not appear. And not all of those will; the volume of calls has always been such that the majority are not published — or publishable.

In addition, it is unfair to allow anonymous and often derogatory comments on letters to the editor, just because they are posted online. Letters are from people who have the courage to affix their names to their views. To allow others who don’t have that conviction to trash them is wrong. For at least the last eight years, we have not published Straight Talk comments that relate to letters, even the positive ones, because if we didn’t publish the criticism, it was one-sided to publish the compliments.

Thus readers may have noticed that the online capability to affix anonymous comments to letters to the editor and editorials online has been disabled.

All too often, we’ve had people who spread the same comment across our Web site, regardless of the story, simply in an attempt to degrade someone else or spread a rumor. Those few are to blame. No one else. We appreciate those who offer constructive comments. But free speech doesn’t mean someone is allowed to deliberately spread rumors, lie, exaggerate or try to create controversy for his or her own amusement.

For anyone who has been banned from a site because of his or her poor behavior to claim his or her free speech is being infringed upon is ironic. The First Amendment is intended to support the expression of truth without fear, not the spreading of untruths without compunction or responsibility.

There are online comments taken to extremes with personal attacks and untruths. Some refuse to limit their comments to the issue at hand, and too often degenerate into personal attacks, more often than not at the others making comments. The purpose of comment capability is to add something to the discussion, to provoke thought on an issue, not to exorcise one’s demons by demonizing another’s views.

There is another reason we’ve come to this point on anonymous call-ins: Straight Talk is a dinosaur. The equipment used is so out of date, the company that produced it has been out of business for several years. There is no way to make repairs, no one who has the capability to do so without access to parts.

Views of readers are, as always, welcome, regardless of the position. But they must follow the letters to the editor guidelines to be considered, with the caveat that appears in our printed policy every day: Letters may be edited for clarity or good taste. Anonymous comments leave a bad aftertaste. We welcome comments that create a fresh perspective — and those that are legitimized by a name, address and telephone number.

The person whose name appears at the top of this page every day is responsible for the editorials, on behalf of the editorial board. Readers can assume that with rare exceptions, she is the author of them. In that spirit, we’ll sign off with …

— Bonnie Williams, for the editorial board

.