[EL] Compulsory disclosure and "accountability"

[Lillie Coney]

It may have more to do with politics that the Federalists Papers were signed as they were.

We see this today.  If a Democrat says something a reflect to accept or reject the statement.  The same thing happens if a Republican should take a position.
the climate in which the papers were published was very contentious and taking sides was problematic.  Maybe not life threatening but it would have complicated social and business relationships.

Depending on how intense the feelings-- the consequences could be sever. Burr did kill Hamilton so I guess you could say politics in the late 1700's to early 1800's was pretty intense.
 
I really do think they wanted to teach people, but first they had to stop the bickering before it started.  In politics people do like to get credit-- and passing on having the authors sign the documents is a statement about how import the public debate would be.

Remember this was the earliest development of strong divergent beliefs on how the country should be governed.

I am pleased that personality did not win out over making the case for a particular view of the role of federal government .

Lillie
On Jun 1, 2012, at 12:46 PM, Jon Roland <jon.roland at constitution.org> wrote:

> If one examines the cases of actual retaliation, one finds few of them that could have presented credible evidence they would face it before it actually occurred, and by then it would be too late. The only evidence that should be needed is the fact that it might occur if the temptation and means are provided.
> 
> Part of the problem is that anonymity is also available to retaliators, and that it is too easy to anonymously inflict harm on others with the aid of agents who don't verify things before acting on them. Retaliators can be very creative. The following are some examples:
> 
> 1. Anonymous phone tip that the target's house is the scene of drug dealing or a plot to use weapons to kill police. (Variant on SWATing.)
> 2. Phoning in an order to turn off the target's utilities (after which he incurs a reconnection charge).
> 3. Phoning in a order to tow away the target's car from in front of his house or place of work.
> 4. Phoning in a tip to the IRS that the target is concealing unreported income.
> 5. Reporting to the target's employer that he is using drugs or stealing employer's property.
> 6. Harassing the target's employer with the message "fire him", which many employers will yield to rather than endure the pressure.
> 7. Phoning in an order to dump a load of manure fertilizer on the target's yard.
> 8. Phoning in an order to cut down the target's trees.
> 9. Denial of service attack on the target's home router, which even though encrypted can be overwhelmed.
> 10. Phoning a target or a family member that the other has been hurt and is in the hospital (perhaps without saying which one), causing intense distress until the call can be found to be bogus.
> 11. Planting evidence of a crime on the target or his premises then phoning in a tip. That can be done by sending anonymous email with an attachment containing child porn, then calling in a tip that he has it on his computer before he can find and remove it himself. (Even better is to hack his computer and do that.)
> 12. Phoning in a tip to a government benefits agency or insurance company from which the target gets benefits that the target filed a fraudulent claim.
> 13. Phoning the target's spouse that he is having an affair with someone.
> 14. Filing false credit reports to ruin the target's credit.
> 15. Inducing criminals to identify themselves with the target's social security number, forever associating him with the criminal record of that individual. 
> 16. Providing tips to criminals of valuable items in the target's house that encourage some to burglarize it.
> 
> The list could go on, but let others add to it.
> 
> 
> 
> On 06/01/2012 10:51 AM, Rick Hasen wrote:
>> 
>> when there is credible evidence people will face severe retaliation, then they should be exempt from disclosure.
> 
> 
> -- Jon
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> Constitution Society               http://constitution.org
> 2900 W Anderson Ln C-200-322           twitter.com/lex_rex
> Austin, TX 78757 512/299-5001  jon.roland at constitution.org
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20120601/09340995/attachment.html>