[EL] Doe v. Reed, more news

[Steve Klein]

>
> Shifting the focus obscures the
> simple fact that we have the right to criticize anyone we disagree with,
> and no
> "free speech" is protected from other "free speech" in rebuttal, unless
> that
> somehow crosses the line into harassment
>

I'm still on the fence with *Doe v. Reed* because of the status of citizens
as legislators in such instances, but in the advocacy context this is far
too simplistic.

Compare *NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co.*, 458 U.S. 886 (1982) with *NAACP
v. Alabama*, 357 U.S. 449 (1958).  It's one thing to speak and to take
careful steps to protect one's identity, then make a misstep and become
subject to open criticism (or boycotts, etc.-- all protected speech). It's
quite another for the government to decide that those who oppose speakers
(again, not necessarily petition signers but ballot measure advocates, those
making independent expenditures that cost more than Mrs. McIntyre's
pamphlets, etc.) have the right to access information so as to
rebut/criticize them.

It seems to eerily parallel Justice Kagan's dissent in *McComish*, inching
toward a governmental interest in "more speech" that calls for not only
disclosing speakers, but subsidizing their opponents.

On a side note, I'm very thankful the "you can always call the police" line
hasn't caught on in Second Amendment jurisprudence, and pray it never will.


On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 4:23 PM, Bev Harris <bev at blackboxvoting.org> wrote:

> It seems to me that Mr. Bopp is making the argument that to have the right
> to
> free speech you must be able to exercise that right without criticism.
>
> By reframing the concept of criticism as "harassment" without defining when
> criticism -- also a free speech right -- crosses the line to become
> harassment,
> the whole issue is rather cleverly framed. Shifting the focus obscures the
> simple fact that we have the right to criticize anyone we disagree with,
> and no
> "free speech" is protected from other "free speech" in rebuttal, unless
> that
> somehow crosses the line into harassment
>
> Bev Harris
> Founder - Black Box Voting
> http://www.blackboxvoting.org
>
> * * * * *
>
> Government is the servant of the people, and not the master of them. The
> people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the
> right
> to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them
> to
> know. We insist on remaining informed so that we may retain control over
> the
> instruments of government we have created.
>
> Black Box Voting is a nonpartisan, nonprofit 501c(3) elections watchdog
> group
> funded entirely by citizen donations.
> http://www.blackboxvoting.org/donate.html
> Black Box Voting
> 330 SW 43rd St Suite K
> PMB 547
> Renton WA 98057
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>



-- 
Steve Klein
Staff Attorney & Research Counsel*
Wyoming Liberty Group
www.wyliberty.org

**Licensed to practice law in Illinois. Counsel to the Wyoming Liberty Group
pursuant to Rule 5.5(d) of the Wyoming Rules of Professional Conduct.*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20111017/c4f372be/attachment.html>