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

Mon Jul 23 09:01:59 PDT 2012

Because the article is bylined and the reporter is vouching for the
leigitmacy of the quote... and actually there is a TON of carping.

On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 11:48 AM, Sean Parnell <
sean at impactpolicymanagement.com> wrote:

> And of course we are constantly being exposed in news articles to
> anonymous speech from “senior administration sources” and “Senate
> Republican insiders” and “a person not authorized to speak for the
> campaign” and “someone speaking on background” and countless variations on
> the theme. I don’t hear much carping about this, though.****
>
> ** **
>
> Sean Parnell****
>
> President****
>
> Impact Policy Management, LLC****
>
> 6411 Caleb Court****
>
> Alexandria, VA  22315****
>
> 571-289-1374 (c)****
>
> sean at impactpolicymanagement.com****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [mailto:
> law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] *On Behalf Of *Jon Henke
> *Sent:* Monday, July 23, 2012 11:18 AM
> *To:* david.l.epstein at gmail.com
> *Cc:* JBoppjr at aol.com; law-election at uci.edu
> *Subject:* Re: [EL] A nation of sissies!/ Re: The enemies list, then and
> now****
>
> ** **
>
> 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****
>
> ** **
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20120723/7c4aad63/attachment.html>