Is Anonymous Speech Dangerous?

[goldcatt]

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.

Technically, but don't forget the strategic loopholes in the system like bundling and soft money.

How do we know if they're being bought or just as important, by whom when all individuals and their agendas have to do is hide behind a piece of paper and stay....anonymous? Can't act on information we don't have. And without knowing who the donors are, how can we determine whether their donation equates with influence?

 

[JWBooth]

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

Foolish man, expecting some sort of consistency.

 

[JWBooth]

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.

True enough. The Brits were quite incensed by the anonymous pamphleteers that were active and advocating secession from the crown.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Technically, but don't forget the strategic loopholes in the system like bundling and soft money.

How do we know if they're being bought or just as important, by whom when all individuals and their agendas have to do is hide behind a piece of paper and stay....anonymous? Can't act on information we don't have. And without knowing who the donors are, how can we determine whether their donation equates with influence?

Again.

I am not talking about payments to politicians, or any member of the government, I am talking about speech. Polical ads, forum posts, editorials, or yelling on a street corner are not something we should be afraid of, even if we do not know who is saying it, all we have to know is what they are saying, and to give both sides the exact same right to speak.

Why do you keep bringing up campaign contributions, bribes, and the influence they buy? We might not know where the money the CoC is spending comes from, but we do where it is going.

 

[SFC Ollie]

Anonymous speech.... Interesting concept. I think we have more of that today than in any time in history, through boards just like this one. We may have total anonymous speech by most of the people here and from the people giving the money up for different advertisements, but all sides have the same anonymity. Me I could care less, chances are 9 out of 10 people who read this could find my address and phone number within ten minutes. Oh well.

By the way the Supreme Court upheld it as a right.

McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission reads:

Protections for anonymous speech are vital to democratic discourse. Allowing dissenters to shield their identities frees them to express critical, minority views . . . Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. . . . It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation . . . at the hand of an intolerant society.

 

[JW Frogen]

Anonymous speech is dangerous, that is why it is wonderful.

It is not a spoon full of sugar, nor bite of the tongue, it is hot, white light and a reflection in the mirror.