[EL] A nation of sissies!/ Re: The enemies list, then and now

[Jon Henke]

While the retaliation question is important, I think we're overlooking the fact that anonymity has speech value of its own. Anonymity can help to ensure that an argument is debated on its merits, rather than on an ad hominem basis.  Anonymity can allow more free speech -- and, in many cases, better free speech. The Federalist Papers, whistleblowers, bloggers, The Economist and many others withhold identities, not just because of potential retaliation, but because they don't want their identity taking attention away from their idea.

Obviously, many people would rather discuss the person than the content of the speech, sometimes for ad hominem purposes and sometimes for substantive purposes.  But the choice of anonymity is itself a form of expression that is protected under the first amendment.

_______
Jon Henke
202-595-4323
Twitter: @jonhenke




On Jul 23, 2012, at 10:27 AM, David Epstein wrote:

I don't know about the anti-Federalist authors, but Madison, Hamilton
and Jay were all well-known supporters of the new Constitution. So
just because they wrote the Federalist Papers anonymously doesn't mean
that they weren't subject to any reprisals or counter-arguments,
hiding behind the cloak of anonymity.

On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 9:40 AM,  <JBoppjr at aol.com> wrote:
> The Founders of our country who wrote the Federalist and Anti-Federalist
> Papers were hardly winps.  Jim Bopp
> 
> In a message dated 7/23/2012 9:25:08 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
> dschultz at gw.hamline.edu writes:
> 
> Justice Scalia is often fond of declaring that the purpose of the First
> Amendment is to promote robust debate.  I agree with him.  But at the same
> time that the First Amendment gives individuals a right to say whatever they
> want, it also means others have a right to respond, hold you accountable,
> and even say you are crazy for your position.  Maybe you get mocked, teased,
> or satirized, but all that is part of what robust debate in a free society
> is about.
> 
> I say this because I fear that the debate about disclosure is exposing us to
> be a nation of wimps!  The arguments being presented here seem to suggest
> that I should be protected from any type of criticism or controversy
> surrounding my political contributions.  I am sorry but the First Amendment
> does not insulate that.  Yes real harassment--such as lynchings or cross
> burnings in front yards as was feared in the NAACP v. Alabama case--are
> something we should worry about, but teasing, taunting, publishing a list of
> names, boycotts, all of that is part of the robust debate surrounding the
> First Amendment that we should expect.  I hate to steal Truman's line "But
> if you can't stand the heat. . ."  If you cannot take the legitimate public
> scrutiny or criticism surrounding your political contribution then stay out
> of politics.  As Scalia once said about administrative law one can also say
> about politics--it ain't for sissies!
> 
> On another note:  Please remember that NAACP v. Alabama ruled in that case
> that case that membership lists of non-profit organizations were protected
> by the First Amendment against government exposure because of the unique
> aspects of the organization and the facts of the cases demonstrating real
> possibility of reprisal.  The case did not rule that donor lists were
> protected by the First Amendment, unless I missed something.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David Schultz, Professor
> Editor, Journal of Public Affairs Education (JPAE)
> Hamline University
> School of Business
> 570 Asbury Street
> Suite 308
> St. Paul, Minnesota 55104
> 651.523.2858 (voice)
> 651.523.3098 (fax)
> http://davidschultz.efoliomn.com/
> http://works.bepress.com/david_schultz/
> http://schultzstake.blogspot.com/
> Twitter: @ProfDSchultz
> Named one of the inaugural 2012 FacultyRow SuperProfessors
> 
>>>> David Epstein <david.l.epstein at gmail.com> 07/23/12 8:10 AM >>>
> This is it? Seriously? After reading the column, I see that someone
> (presumably wealthy) who donated money to Romney has been audited. I
> also see that an Obama "campaign website" listed some donors along
> with aspersions on their characters, but (tellingly), there is no link
> provided to this website. If someone has the link, I'd be happy to
> follow that too, but my guess is that it wasn't published by the
> actual Obama campaign.
> 
> Pretty thin gruel, definitely on the level of internet urban legends
> rather than actual news.
> 
> On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 8:59 AM, <JBoppjr at aol.com> wrote:
>> Click here: The enemies list, then and now | Power Line
>> 
>> Interesting story about harassment of contributors triggered by the
>> Obama campaign.
>> 
>> Opps, on second thought, don't read, we have been authoritatively told
>> that this does not happen. Jim Bopp
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Law-election mailing list
>> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
>> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
> 
> 
> 
> --
> **************************************
> David Epstein
> Paradox Consulting
> 250 West 89th Street
> Suite 12-J
> New York, NY 10024
> 646-391-7733
> **************************************
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
_______________________________________________
Law-election mailing list
Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20120723/f3b0be3f/attachment.html>