Is Anonymous Speech Dangerous?

[Quantum Windbag]

Anyone who pays any attention to politics, which is almost everyone on this board, has heard one Democrat or another, and even an occasional Republican, calling out the Chamber of Commerce for not disclosing their donors. Our esteemed Secretary of Health and Human Services has even called it dangerous.

Kathleen Sebelius sees 'dangerous' flow of anonymous campaign cash - CSMonitor.com

That got t me wondering, just how dangerous is anonymous political speech? That go t me thinking about Publius, a little known figure from our history. Who is Publius?

For those who do not know, Publius was the penname of Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay when they published the Federalist Papers. I might be wrong in my thinking, but my guess is that they would argue that the Bill of Rights protects anonymous speech because it is dangerous, not in spite of it.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akfvbyLoq1c[/ame]

There are those here that argue that political speech should show who is saying what, and that anonymous speech is wrong. I challenge each and everyone who believes that to stand upon their principles and post their full name, address, and phone number here on the board before they call for the Chamber of Commerce to disclose their donors.

 

[syrenn]

Do you know who I am? Do I know who you are? The internet in terms of forum is anonymous speech.

Speech is one thing. Money and funding is another.

 

[dilloduck]

Do you know who I am? Do I know who you are? The internet in terms of forum is anonymous speech.

Speech is one thing. Money and funding is another.

Speech = publicity= advertising= money

There you have it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Do you know who I am? Do I know who you are? The internet in terms of forum is anonymous speech.

Speech is one thing. Money and funding is another.

I know who you are.

 

[syrenn]

Do you know who I am? Do I know who you are? The internet in terms of forum is anonymous speech.

Speech is one thing. Money and funding is another.

I know who you are.

 

[JW Frogen]

Do you know who I am? Do I know who you are? The internet in terms of forum is anonymous speech.

Speech is one thing. Money and funding is another.

Speech = publicity= advertising= money

There you have it.

I have not gleaned one fucking cent, but I have payed the price.

 

[JBeukema]

So Windbag is supporting the secretive fascist state?

 

[Kalam]

If money is speech, why is my verbal support for Hamas constitutionally protected when I'd be sent to jail for supporting them financially?

 

[JBeukema]

Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power
Benito Mussolini​

 

[goldcatt]

I don't agree that money = speech, so of course I believe monetary contributions to a primarily political entity should be disclosed. Anonymous speech is what we do here, anonymous cash flowing through the system in these huge amounts is begging for corruption.

 

[goldcatt]

If money is speech, why is my verbal support for Hamas constitutionally protected when I'd be sent to jail for supporting them financially?

That's simple. Because you don't have enough money.

 

[Kalam]

If money is speech, why is my verbal support for Hamas constitutionally protected when I'd be sent to jail for supporting them financially?

That's simple. Because you don't have enough money.

Oh, I live comfortably.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

So Windbag is supporting the secretive fascist state?

No, I support anonymous speech. You keep projecting your support for fascism on others.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I don't agree that money = speech, so of course I believe monetary contributions to a primarily political entity should be disclosed. Anonymous speech is what we do here, anonymous cash flowing through the system in these huge amounts is begging for corruption.

How do you define a primarily political entity? Would that include someone who was publishing the Federalist Papers? That took money and resources that the government of King George would have loved to shut down, and even imprison, or kill, the actual authors. That is why the 1st Amendment was written, and added to the Constitution. It is designed specifically to protest just the activity you now have a problem with.

 

[Greenbeard]

How do you define a primarily political entity? Would that include someone who was publishing the Federalist Papers? That took money and resources that the government of King George would have loved to shut down, and even imprison, or kill, the actual authors. That is why the 1st Amendment was written, and added to the Constitution. It is designed specifically to protest just the activity you now have a problem with.

I think your timeline's a bit off here. The only government threatened by the Federalist papers would be the existing (American) government at the time, that established under the Articles of Confederation. What you have there is a future President, future Treasury secretary, and future Chief Justice of the Supreme Court using a pseudonym to argue in favor of a document that two of them had helped to write. I don't know if that's "dangerous" per se but I certainly imagine there would be some objections if Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid were caught using fake names to write newspaper op-eds in favor of the health care law.

And by the way, Federalist 84 explicitly argues that a Bill of Rights would be "dangerous."

 

[goldcatt]

I don't agree that money = speech, so of course I believe monetary contributions to a primarily political entity should be disclosed. Anonymous speech is what we do here, anonymous cash flowing through the system in these huge amounts is begging for corruption.

How do you define a primarily political entity? Would that include someone who was publishing the Federalist Papers? That took money and resources that the government of King George would have loved to shut down, and even imprison, or kill, the actual authors. That is why the 1st Amendment was written, and added to the Constitution. It is designed specifically to protest just the activity you now have a problem with.

Remember what the Federalist Papers were. We get them today bound in a book, but they were originally a series of op-eds sent to existing publications. Greenbeard's terminology of letters to the editor would be more accurate, actually. Their primary purpose was to lay out the argument for the Federalists to raise popular support for ratification among the literate elite in the separate States. Today we find them informative, and they are as a reflection on the Federalist stance at the time and especially of the authors. But don't confuse them with a major lobbying group as far as the amount or influence of money flowing through their pen vs. from lobbyists into Congressional campaign coffers. All they really needed was time, paper, something to write with and money for postage.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I think your timeline's a bit off here. The only government threatened by the Federalist papers would be the existing (American) government at the time, that established under the Articles of Confederation. What you have there is a future President, future Treasury secretary, and future Chief Justice of the Supreme Court using a pseudonym to argue in favor of a document that two of them had helped to write. I don't know if that's "dangerous" per se but I certainly imagine there would be some objections if Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid were caught using fake names to write newspaper op-eds in favor of the health care law.

And by the way, Federalist 84 explicitly argues that a Bill of Rights would be "dangerous."

Thanks. I was way off there, wasn't I?

Nonetheless, the 1st Amendment was specifically designed to protect this type of activity. Personally, I would have no problem with anyone writing an anonymous editorial in support of anything they wanted to write about. I know some would have a problem, but they are all wrong.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Remember what the Federalist Papers were. We get them today bound in a book, but they were originally a series of op-eds sent to existing publications. Greenbeard's terminology of letters to the editor would be more accurate, actually. Their primary purpose was to lay out the argument for the Federalists to raise popular support for ratification among the literate elite in the separate States. Today we find them informative, and they are as a reflection on the Federalist stance at the time and especially of the authors. But don't confuse them with a major lobbying group as far as the amount or influence of money flowing through their pen vs. from lobbyists into Congressional campaign coffers. All they really needed was time, paper, something to write with and money for postage.

If we are going to compare them in context we have to remember that newspapers were the only means of mass communication at the time. They might only have been letters to the editor, but that was the height of technology back then. If they were around today, and trying to do the same thing, they would need money for television, radio, and internet ads. They might even do some lobbying.

The 1st Amendment protects thsi type of activity, period.

 

[goldcatt]

Remember what the Federalist Papers were. We get them today bound in a book, but they were originally a series of op-eds sent to existing publications. Greenbeard's terminology of letters to the editor would be more accurate, actually. Their primary purpose was to lay out the argument for the Federalists to raise popular support for ratification among the literate elite in the separate States. Today we find them informative, and they are as a reflection on the Federalist stance at the time and especially of the authors. But don't confuse them with a major lobbying group as far as the amount or influence of money flowing through their pen vs. from lobbyists into Congressional campaign coffers. All they really needed was time, paper, something to write with and money for postage.

If we are going to compare them in context we have to remember that newspapers were the only means of mass communication at the time. They might only have been letters to the editor, but that was the height of technology back then. If they were around today, and trying to do the same thing, they would need money for television, radio, and internet ads. They might even do some lobbying.

The 1st Amendment protects thsi type of activity, period.

You're glossing over the difference between persuasion, which is protected, and bribery, which should never be. Money being channeled directly to elected officials should be heavily regulated. Today's campaign system requires fundraising, but it also (as we've seen over and over again) encourages influence buying. The sources of that money at minimum need to be disclosed so we know who is exerting their influence in the system.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You're glossing over the difference between persuasion, which is protected, and bribery, which should never be. Money being channeled directly to elected officials should be heavily regulated. Today's campaign system requires fundraising, but it also (as we've seen over and over again) encourages influence buying. The sources of that money at minimum need to be disclosed so we know who is exerting their influence in the system.

How am I doing that? I am not advocating anything but the right of a person to anonymous free speech. Bribery is a criminal act, not speech. Besides, all politicians have to report campaign donations, and no one is allowed to donate more than $2000. (That is off the top of my head, I might be, probably am, wrong, but do not feel like looking it up.)

The reason Obama and others a demonizing the CoC is because they are in power, and trying to protect their seats. The only reason they want to know who is donating is so they can retaliate against the people who oppose them. That activity needs to be protected, unless you want someone to be able to demand that a cause you support that is unpopular with the powers that be face the same threats.

The simplest solution if we think someone is being bought is to kick them out of office.