[EL] Twitter's Lawsuit and Brown v. Socialist Workers Party

[Allen Dickerson]

Rick's interesting summary of Brown v. Socialist Workers Party deserves equal attention with his offer of a broader pro-privacy alliance.


Brown carries a lot of water for the pro-disclosure case. But if it provides effective protection, and especially if it is to be the last line of defense in the area of political privacy, we should try to agree on its scope. A few questions:


1. Rick speaks of "an exemption when the government singles out people for harassment." Does he (and do others) think that Brown applies only to government action? Brown itself spoke of both private and governmental harassment. Is either sufficient, standing alone?


2. How serious, and how immediate, does the potential harm have to be? Why do some think the record developed in the Prop 8 litigation -- which detailed vandalism, threats, and actual "loss of livelihood" -- was insufficient, but the possibility of harm to government employees (with their various job protections) is not?


3. What governmental interest is sufficient? Donors -- including, in some cases, very low level donors -- have their political views made available to their "superiors." Why does the informational interest in such low levels of financial support ($200 federally; $100 over four years in Delaware Strong Families, a case which Rick and others opposed) cancel out their right to workplace anonymity, but the government's interest in enforcing the Hatch Act does not?


I recognize that Rick spoke in shorthand. But Brown strikes me as a rare place for broad agreement. It has been on life support in recent years -- the Socialist Workers own exemption is languishing at the FEC, and may not be renewed. On what terms do pro-disclosure advocates propose its resurrection?


Allen


________________________________
From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu <law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu> on behalf of Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu>
Sent: Friday, April 7, 2017 10:21 AM
To: Jason Torchinsky; law-election at uci.edu
Subject: Re: [EL] Twitter sues - and Seth Waxman urges protection for anonymous speech

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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20170407/a208d6e8/attachment.html>