On 4/6/11, Sean Parnell <sparnell@campaignfreedom.org> wrote:
What, exactly, does it mean to hold speakers "accountable," and what is the
government's proper role in helping to hold people "accountable" for their
speech?
It has to do with other voters correcting other voters (or, nowadays,
corporations), or voters giving or discounting the weight to be given
to a communication based on who is saying it. Accountability, in this
context, has nothing to do with, as Sean Parnell puts it above, the
government holding "people "accountable"."
As one example of "accountability" in this particular context, one can
see that it works both ways: If a prominent person steps out and
signs their name to a petition or open letter and it can either add or
detract from the weight or influence many people will attach to the
communication. A prominent Democrat advocating social spending cuts
has more average weight as does a prominent Republican advocating tax
increases on the wealthy. Anonymity defeats that process entirely,
and secrecy -- which is the core of anonymity -- is the refuge of
scoundrels, as Joseph Pulitzer observed:
Joseph Pulitzer: "We are a democracy, and there is only one way to get
a democracy on its feet in the matter of its individual, its social,
its municipal, its state, its national conduct, and that is by keeping
the public informed about what is going on. There is not a crime,
there is not a dodge, there is not a trick, there is not a swindle,
there is not a vice which does not live by secrecy. Get these things
out in the open, describe them, attack them, ridicule them in the
press, and sooner or later public opinion will sweep them away . . .
publicity may not be the only thing that is needed, but it is the one
thing without which all other agencies will fail."
And a few other quotes, which I posted in January of 2010 on this list before:
Benjamin Franklin: "He'll cheat without scruple who can without fear
[of being caught]."
Plato: arguing that with anonymity a person would be a fool not to be
corrupt and seizer power:
"Glaucon recounts the tale of Gyges, a shepherd in the service of the
King of Lydia, who finds a marvelous ring that confers upon the wearer
the power to become invisible and do things secretly. In short order,
Gyges uses the power of the ring to enter the palace, seduce the
Queen, kill the King and usurp the throne. Plato suggests that if a
just and unjust man were each to possess such a ring possessing powers
of unaccountability, they would both use it to commit injustices, and
that anyone who acted otherwise would be a fool." (Quotation
summarizing "The Ring of Gyges" from "This is Not a Book", p. 51)
Harry S. Truman: "Secrecy and a free, democratic government don't mix."
John F. Kennedy, perhaps applicable to "secret societies":
"The very word 'secrecy' is repugnant in a free and open society; and
we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret
societies, to secret oaths, and to secret proceedings."
Re: The Judiciary: "Without publicity, all other checks are
insufficient: in comparison of publicity, all other checks are of
small account. Recordation, appeal, whatever other institutions might
present themselves in the character of checks, would be found to
operate rather as cloaks than checks; as cloaks in reality, as checks
only in appearance." Bentham also emphasized that open proceedings
enhanced the performance of all involved, protected the judge from
imputations of dishonesty, and served to educate the public.-
--Rationale of Judicial Evidence at 522-525.
Sean Parnell
President
Center for Competitive Politics
http://www.campaignfreedom.org
http://www.twitter.com/seanparnellccp
124 S. West Street, #201
Alexandria, VA 22310
(703) 894-6800 phone
(703) 894-6813 direct
(703) 894-6811 fax
-----Original Message-----
From: election-law-bounces@mailman.lls.edu
[mailto:election-law-bounces@mailman.lls.edu] On Behalf Of Paul Lehto
Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2011 5:47 PM
To: jon.roland@constitution.org
Cc: election-law@mailman.lls.edu
Subject: Re: [EL] Anonymity and harassment
One real problem with the anonymity/harassment debate is the fairly
low standard of "harassment" that gets regularly applied by many.
Oftentimes, accountability and "harassment" feel very much the same -
to a person being held accountable. (This of course does not cover
the more extreme examples of harassment.)
Under such relatively low standards, criminal defense attorneys,
prosecutors, as well as judges are certainly both subjected to and in
reasonable apprehension of "harassment." One could add jurors in some
cases as well. At least the attorneys, prosecutors and judges would
all have the constitutional first amendment right to wear hoods
covering their faces and to conceal their names, on grounds of actual
and potential "harassment."
The above is the main reason why, in my mind, the concept of "civic
courage" must be given a a relatively heavy counterweight to whatever
realities of harassment exist.
Paul Lehto, J.D.
On 4/5/11, Jon Roland <jon.roland@constitution.org> wrote:
Not if they are collaborating with the harassers.
There are degrees and kinds of harassment. It can extend to assassination,
which may be unlikely but only has to happen once for a given
speaker/publisher.
Our rights were forged in an environment of occupation by a brutal enemy,
and defense of them should always assume real enemies that are capable of
anything. Abuses by government officials are not just in the movies. I
have
had my life threatened by a government agent after I criticized his
agency.
Some of you seem to be oblivious to how brutal it can get in the real
world.
Or it can be simply a matter that the speaker/publisher wants his words to
be evaluated on their own merit without intrusion by his reputation, be it
good or bad, with various recipients. If the author is a known partisan,
his
words may be largely ignored by both his opponents and supporters, rather
than made the subject of deep deliberation.
On 04/05/2011 03:37 PM, Rick Hasen wrote:
In the campaign finance context, it makes sense to have a court or
regulatory body made determinations about harassment.
-- 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@constitution.org
----------------------------------------------------------
--
Paul R Lehto, J.D.
P.O. Box 1
Ishpeming, MI 49849
lehto.paul@gmail.com
906-204-4026 (cell)
_______________________________________________
election-law mailing list
election-law@mailman.lls.edu
http://mailman.lls.edu/mailman/listinfo/election-law