A barrage of anonymous and defamatory comments -- unless the stakes are excruciatingly high -- is rarely acceptable. The internet removes the threshold of consideration. The stakes in this case weren't particularly high; Smith may well be a jerk, charlatan, saint, or genius (and he may be all or none of those things), but anonymous attack after anonymous attack contributes nothing but entropy, and of course opens multiple entities to legal action. Which is one thing here, and an entirely different thing in, say, the UK. Whatever my legal standing here in the States, for example, I do fear any judgment that involves being "published" in the UK, and I don't trust their courts not to judge a blog as being published there even if the writer is in Missouri. Other reasons could be found for wariness, and simple courtesy and decency are not least among them.
I'm not saying that one should never allow anonymous commentary, but the threshold of importance was hardly met in this case, and a lobotomized chimp could have seen there was an (actual) Campaign of Hate™ going on there. If I'm the host for those comments, I view them with suspicion until given reason to think otherwise. If I'm the commenter, I should feel shame at the cowardice. It's not like people can't, and don't, say crappy things about people -- true or not -- with their names attached.
All that said, Smith will take more PR damage from this, if he pursues it, than he will achieve reputational satisfaction from a positive outcome.
