[EL] Twitter sues - and Seth Waxman urges protection for anonymous speech

[Steve Klein]

I’m on the record defending
<http://www.fed-soc.org/publications/detail/bailey-v-maine-commission-on-governmental-ethics-another-step-toward-the-end-of-political-privacy>
*de
minimis* spending on political blogging from campaign finance disclosure.

Others disagree <https://twitter.com/GerryHebert/status/618439787855392768>.

Prof. Hasen, to the best of my recollection your work has focused on
disclosing big money spent on political speech, such as it is. It was only
two weeks ago, however, you defended placing disclosure on just about any
kind of advocacy
<http://department-lists.uci.edu/pipermail/law-election/2017-March/014167.html>,
assuming the money is big.

But plenty of state regimes allow campaign finance disclaimers to apply to
just this kind of speech, with no spending thresholds whatsoever. (Even on
the narrower spectrum, some of these “alt” accounts have, indeed, gone well
into express advocacy, etc.)

For what it’s worth, I condemn the effort (and, along with that, Gator
baiting <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3I0K-ymOTS4>). Though I’m quite
impressed that *Brown* would still have a place for, of all things,
protecting (presumed) federal employees who are finding new and interesting
alternatives to work (for tweets during business hours, that is).

On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 10:21 AM, Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu> wrote:

> 1. I imagine Twitter is a paying client for Seth Waxman, and this does not
> necessarily represent his personal views.
> 2. Even for those of us who support strong disclosure laws, there is an
> exemption when the government singles out people for harassment (Brown v.
> Socialist Workers Party).  From the Twitter complaint: “Such fears are
> likely to be especially great for users of “alternative agency” accounts
> who are currently employed by the very agency that is a principal target of
> the commentary, in light of the retaliation, harassment, or even loss of
> livelihood that might occur if their real identities became known to their
> superiors.”
> 3. Will all the campaign finance deregulation groups that oppose
> disclosure come out and condemn the attempt to unmask the identity of the
> Twitter user?
>
> Rick
>
> On 4/7/17, 3:32 AM, "law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu on
> behalf of Jason Torchinsky" <law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu
> on behalf of jtorchinsky at hvjt.law> wrote:
>
>     All,
>
>     It is amazing to see this complaint urging the court to protect
> against government disclosure of speech.
>
>     Jason
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election




-- 
Steve Klein
Attorney*
https://www.linkedin.com/in/stephenrklein

**Licensed to practice law in Illinois and Michigan*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20170407/43a070a4/attachment.html>