[EL] The need for less disclosure sometimes

[Smith, Brad]

Totally wrong question. The question is: should the government be able to force people to reveal personal information that others will use to harm them? Is there any government interest, let alone a "compelling" one, the usual standard where first amendment rights are infringed  and if the government has some other interest, how strong must it be to overcome this first amendment interest?

Here's a question: would you favor a law requiring all charitable contributions to be placed on the web, so that citizens can boycott fellow citizens more easily? If not, I think you've answered my first question above.

Sent from my iPhone

On Apr 3, 2014, at 9:10 PM, "Rick Hasen" <rhasen at law.uci.edu<mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu>> wrote:

Do you see no protected First Amendment right to an economic boycott ?

Rick Hasen

Sent from my iPhone. Please excuse typos.

On Apr 3, 2014, at 5:49 PM, "Joe La Rue" <joseph.e.larue at gmail.com<mailto:joseph.e.larue at gmail.com>> wrote:

"The resignation of Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich over a personal $1,000 donation he made in 2008 in support of California’s Proposition 8 shows the dark side of campaign disclosure laws and how [some] are using them to intimidate, harass, and bully anyone who disagrees with them on social and cultural issues."

Sometimes the answer is not "more disclosure."  Sometimes the answer must be less disclosure, if we are to allow unpopular political speech to survive.  This is precisely what the Bopp Law Firm argued in Doe v. Reed.

Read more here. http://blog.heritage.org/2014/04/03/liberals-using-campaign-disclosures-intimidate-harass/

Joe
___________________
Joseph E. La Rue
cell: 480.272.2715
email: joseph.e.larue at gmail.com<mailto:joseph.e.larue at gmail.com>


CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:  This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information or otherwise be protected by law. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please immediately notify the sender and permanently delete the message.

PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATION/ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT.

IRS CIRCULAR 230 DISCLOSURE: Any tax advice contained in this communication was not written and is not intended to be used for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties imposed by the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing, or recommending any transaction or matter addressed herein.

_______________________________________________
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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20140404/6841c526/attachment.html>