[EL] "We the People" as "CEO"

[Volokh, Eugene]

                It seems to me that there's a missing step in the analysis.  It may well be irrational for a sovereign not to care whether information comes from a trusted source.  But it doesn't follow that the sovereign's representatives may use legal coercion to mandate disclosure of this information.

                We see that in lots of situations.  It's irrational for a sovereign to pay attention to foolish arguments, but it doesn't follow that the sovereign's representatives may ban arguments they see as foolish.  It might be irrational for a sovereign not to care whether arguments on some religiously laden topics come from people of one or another religious denomination (who may thus have biases that make them less reliable).  But it doesn't follow that the sovereign's representatives may require speakers to disclose under oath their religious beliefs (or, on other topics, their sexual orientations).

                The examples may be multiplied, but the theoretical point is simple:  Even if the sovereign may find it useful to have more information of a certain kind (or less information of a certain kind) it doesn't follow that the sovereign's representatives may use legal coercion to mandate such disclosure (or to restrict such speech).

                Eugene

Paul Lehto writes:

So, unless you contest that We the People are sovereign in elections, I don't see any basis for insisting on a right to speak anonymously to the sovereign.   It's irrational for any sovereign not to care whether their information comes from what they perceive to be a trusted source or from an unreliable source.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20120511/edae1f8e/attachment.html>