[EL] A nation of sissies!/ Re: The enemies list, then and now
Mark Schmitt
schmitt.mark at gmail.com
Mon Jul 23 11:14:04 PDT 2012
Just to emphasize a point Jeff made in passing -- unnamed sources in
journalism are a subject of huge controversy and there are lots of
complaints about their overuse. The Times and the Post have both started
requiring stories to explain more clearly why the source was granted
anonymity (although often it's that stupid phrase, "because he is not
authorized to speak to the press," for a person who plainly is
authorized to speak to the press), and to give enough information that
the reader can judge the speaker's perspective (economic claims by a
"senior administration official" are judged differently from "a
high-ranking Republican aide" or "a Nobel-prize winning economist.") And
an editor will always insist on knowing who the source is, in part to
judge whether the identification is sufficient for the reader.
I'm not really seeing the parallel to donor disclosure, since the donor
is not actually doing the speaking, but in any event, I don't want the
idea that anonymous sourcing is uncontroversial to stand unchallenged.
It's very controversial and there should be a lot less of it.
Mark Schmitt
Senior Fellow, The Roosevelt Institute <http://www.newdeal20.org>
202/246-2350
gchat or Skype: schmitt.mark
@mschmitt9 <https://twitter.com/#%21/mschmitt9>
On 7/23/2012 12:39 PM, Sean Parnell wrote:
>
> And the speaker in the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's ads is, well, the
> Chamber as an institution, not the donors/members. Thanks for clearing
> up that we don't really need the DISCLOSE Act, since we don't need to
> know the donors any more than we need to know the anonymous people
> quoted in news articles. Or at least, we don't need to know to a
> degree sufficient to overcome the presumption of privacy and anonymity
> that attach to both situations.
>
> Best,
>
> Sean Parnell
>
> President
>
> Impact Policy Management, LLC
>
> 6411 Caleb Court
>
> Alexandria, VA 22315
>
> 571-289-1374 (c)
>
> sean at impactpolicymanagement.com
>
> *From:*Jeff Hauser [mailto:jeffhauser at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Monday, July 23, 2012 12:28 PM
> *To:* Sean Parnell
> *Cc:* Jon Henke; david.l.epstein at gmail.com; JBoppjr at aol.com;
> law-election at uci.edu
> *Subject:* Re: [EL] A nation of sissies!/ Re: The enemies list, then
> and now
>
> The speaker with first amendment rights in an article isn't the person
> being quoted by the reporter--otherwise, all flacks would have a right
> to get their quotes into pieces. The reason we don't trust anonymous
> articles--the reason why places like Bloomberg now even identify
> editors as well as reporters--is because people distrust anonymous speech.
>
> Your example undermines your position.
>
> On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 12:25 PM, Sean Parnell
> <sean at impactpolicymanagement.com
> <mailto:sean at impactpolicymanagement.com>> wrote:
>
> The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has a recognizable figure standing behind
> their message -- the CEO, a Mr. Donohue if memory serves correct.
>
> And I've never heard that the reason to strip anonymity from, say, big
> donors to the NRA is to vouch for the "legitimacy" of their speech. As
> I understand it, the purpose of disclosure is to provide an
> 'information cue' to voters, diminish corruption, and allow speakers
> (donors) to be held accountable. It would certainly provide me an
> information cue if I knew the identity of certain anonymous quotes,
> diminish corruption (leaking classified information is corruption,
> after all) and allow for them to be held accountable as well. Tell me
> again what's the difference between an anonymous quote in a news
> article on a matter of vital public policy or politics, and someone
> giving $15,000 to CrossroadsGPS?
>
> I should have said that there's no carping amongst those who consider
> anonymous speech a grave threat to the republic, and are proposing
> laws to strip anonymity from those who manage to preserve some of it
> under the current system.
>
> Sean Parnell
>
> President
>
> Impact Policy Management, LLC
>
> 6411 Caleb Court
>
> Alexandria, VA 22315
>
> 571-289-1374 (c)
>
> sean at impactpolicymanagement.com <mailto:sean at impactpolicymanagement.com>
>
> *From:*Jeff Hauser [mailto:jeffhauser at gmail.com
> <mailto:jeffhauser at gmail.com>]
> *Sent:* Monday, July 23, 2012 12:02 PM
> *To:* Sean Parnell
> *Cc:* Jon Henke; david.l.epstein at gmail.com
> <mailto:david.l.epstein at gmail.com>; JBoppjr at aol.com
> <mailto:JBoppjr at aol.com>; law-election at uci.edu
> <mailto:law-election at uci.edu>
>
>
> *Subject:* Re: [EL] A nation of sissies!/ Re: The enemies list, then
> and now
>
> 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
> <mailto: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 <mailto:sean at impactpolicymanagement.com>
>
> *From:*law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu
> <mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu>
> [mailto: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 <mailto:david.l.epstein at gmail.com>
> *Cc:* JBoppjr at aol.com <mailto:JBoppjr at aol.com>; law-election at uci.edu
> <mailto: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
> <mailto: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 <mailto: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
> <mailto: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
> <mailto: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
> <mailto: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
> <mailto: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
> <mailto: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
> <mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>
>
>
> This body part will be downloaded on demand.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20120723/557f0b4e/attachment.html>
View list directory