Anonymous Speech IS Free Speech
The decision to publish anonymously was important for two reasons: It let the authors speak with a single voice and, as Madison was already an important voice in shaping the Constitution, allowed the arguments to stand on their own merits. As Federalist “No. 1” explains, “My arguments will be open to all, and may be judged of by all.”
But despite its clear importance to America’s founding and its enshrinement in the First Amendment, the ability of Americans to anonymously advocate ideas they care about is under attack at the state and federal level.
Non-profit organizations such as the NAACP or the National Rifle Association have for decades vigorously partaken in the public policy debate. To keep their doors open, non-profits have generally relied on the support of thousands of members who believe in the organization’s mission. But politicians and bureaucrats in states such Missouri, South Dakota, Washington, and Oregon are risking diminishing that support considerably. Voters in South Dakota and Washington will be asked next week to vote on ballot initiatives requiring supporters’ personal information be reported to the government. Public officials in Missouri and Oregon, meanwhile, are backing legislative measures implementing this free speech-chilling policy. Similar efforts are underway, or will be soon, in other states.
The sad fact is that forced disclosure would open people up to harassment and violent attack. If these laws pass, individuals’ names, home address, contributions, and more will end up in a searchable government website, where anyone could use the information to target their opponents. Ultimately, this could stifle people’s willingness to speak out and support causes they believe in—exactly what TED’s Chris Anderson warned.
I am for disclosure, and also steep punishment for interfering with public debate by harassment or violence.
Posted by: Valerie at November 02, 2016 03:27 PM
Last I checked, I still have a right to defend myself and my community.
Posted by: Gork at November 02, 2016 05:19 PM
Did you see any of the people beating Trump supporters being jailed AND fined or punished in any way?
Did you see any of the black lives matter people being jailed AND fined or punished in any way for all of their destruction?
So you want disclosure so that any of us that dislike the proceeding groups policies can be easily found by them. BUT, you have Not seen any punishment.
Tell me again how that will work. I am missing something here.
Posted by: Kafiroon at November 03, 2016 10:18 AM
Posted by: Phil at November 03, 2016 10:23 AM
but you know that these closet-commies will always only have RULES FOR THEE, BUT NOT FOR ME
Posted by: burgundiaal at November 03, 2016 04:06 PM
Part one, correct public business is public.
Part two, WRONG!
Unpopular speech deserves special protection, the reason they put this in there is simple, the king hanged people for writing even less than sedition.
If you've no anonymous speech, unpopular speech or speech unpopular with the government is suppressed.
Also you can't have a free press. Because anonymity is central to their sources. The sources' right to remain anonymous rests on the right to anonymous speech.
Posted by: Howie at November 03, 2016 06:24 PM
Posted by: Greyrooster at November 06, 2016 06:34 PM
Processing 0.02, elapsed 0.0043 seconds.
15 queries taking 0.0029 seconds, 15 records returned.
Page size 9 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.7 alpha.