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? I was under the impression that the First Amendment meant, in fact,
that government wouldn't be holding people "accountable" for their free
speech (i.e. punishing them for voicing the "wrong" opinions).
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
----------------------------------------------------------