On 4/6/11, Kenneth R. Mayer <kmayer@polisci.wisc.edu> wrote:

How is this even a question?  I'm not even a lawyer, and *I* know that the
1st amendment applies to government, not private entities.  Good heavens.
On 04/06/11, Bev Harris   wrote:

Quoting "Scarberry, Mark" <Mark.Scarberry@pepperdine.edu>:

Are you suggesting that the First Amendment does not protect me if I
send an
anonymous letter to the newspaper

While Kenneth Mayer's point is true and correct as a matter of law, at
this point in this particular debate a First Amendment VALUE of
"anonymity" is being asserted for purposes of enshrining it further as
First Amendment LAW.  Because the discussion at this point is about
values and principles and not about present law, examples both having
and not having state action are relevant to the discussion and
understanding of the operation of anonymity as a first amendment
value.

Those examples or analogies outside the context of state action will
have lesser weight (assuming the state action doctrine remains robust
in First Amendment jurisprudence, unlike the 13th amendment and other
parts of the Constitution that do apply directly to the private
sector), but these private sector examples are not irrelevant:  They
represent expressions of First amendment VALUES.  The example of
newspapers is pertinent since they specially claim to be strong
devotees of both first amendment values as well as First Amendment law
- so newspaper policies of not allowing anonymous letters are
"admissible" to this discussion, and each reader can find the
newspaper "precedent" (on the level of values) either persuasive or
hypocritical, and weight that evidence in the light of the
considerations above, and any other aspects of their individual
judgment.

It certainly appears that newspapers, having to daily review droves of
proposed letters to the editor, have noted distinct patterns in
anonymous letters (as has Bev Harris below in her reviews of blog
posts on her site) in which anonymous letters are much more likely to
be the rhetorical equivalents of harassment and drive-by shootings,
specifically because of the lack of "accountability" to others that
anonymity provides.

Anonymity creates more harassment than it protects from.  Thus, it's
strategically critical for pro-anonymity folks to lead with their
somewhat inflated complaints about harassment, and to omit any robust
explanation of why present anti-harassment laws and the like are
sufficient to protect everyone else but not political speakers - who
require the functional equivalent of a prior restraint styled as
anonymity so that they may fire off their political shots freely and
at will.  The occasional need for moderator intervention on this and
other listservs is proof positive that the high level of political
discourse the First Amendment (and First Amendment values animating
this list) is intended to further is harmed by anonymous "fire at
will" policies.

Paul Lehto, J.D.

Most reputable newspapers nowadays do not allow anonymous letters. They
tend to be used to libel, or to game the system with free publicity. Likewise many
Web sites (including mine) do not allow anonymous posts. They are too often
used to troll, libel, and propagandize.
Bev Harris
Founder - Black Box Voting
http://www.blackboxvoting.org
* * * * *
Government is the servant of the people, and not the master of them. The
people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the
right
to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for
them to
know. We insist on remaining informed so that we may retain control over
the
instruments of government we have created.

_______________________________________________
election-law mailing list
election-law@mailman.lls.edu
http://mailman.lls.edu/mailman/listinfo/election-law