Anonymous speech. A strange concept for my way of thinking. The
expression of what comes from my mind, if considered by myself worthy
of expression, should be worthy of also carrying my name.
In fact, one use of anonymous speech, that really bugs me, is the
"According to Official Sources". Knowing from where the thinking
began is a critical part of determining whether the words have value
at all.
Now this is what I think if I am living in a land where Freedom of
Speech is valued and respected. This is no longer, if it ever were,
the case in America. In fact, putting your name to certain thoughts
will bring down the "Thought Shock Troops", with all that goes with
the many forms of persecution that follows.
So today, just as with the Colonists who were persecuted by King
George, spreading the words of Freedom and attaching ones name is
tantamount to severe consequences.
In that sense, resorting to anonymous speech, is an indication of a
serious restraint on our Freedom of Speech. The use of fear and
reprisal to limit the expression of thoughts, is no different than
imprisonment. Any organization or government that is forced to
control its members thinking, is an organization or government that is
built on Fear. Such organizations and governments come to understand
that the very Fear contained in their core, can be used to control
their members. Fear and negative reinforcement. Many a brave citizen
has paid dearly for having attached their name to their thoughts. Our
prisons are becoming crowded with citizens who dared to show their
names on their words.
Anonymous speech. One sure sign that we are no longer a Free People.
Carl Jarvis
On 11/15/16, Bob Hachey <bhachey@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi all,
Now here's an interesting piece given the recent move to shine a light on
anonymous speech. I think the point here is that when used correctly,
anonymous speech is a good thing, but, like many other things, it can be
miss-used by the selfish and greedy.
Bob Hachey
Hamilton's lesson about free speech .
Bradley Smith.
Bradley Smith, a member of the Federal Election Commission from 2000 to
2005, is chairman of the Center for Competitive Politics.
If you've seen the critically acclaimed Broadway musical "Hamilton," then
you've heard the song "Farmer Refuted. It's based on a letter a young
Alexander Hamilton wrote - he was barely 20 - offering a passionate defense
of individual liberty and the brewing American Revolution. Yet he did not
sign it under his own name, instead writing as "a sincere friend of
America.
This overlooked fact deserves greater attention. Lin-Manuel Miranda's
musical has renewed Americans' appreciation of Hamilton, one of our
nation's
most dynamic founders. Never before have his life and views, from his
defense of individual rights to his opposition to slavery, been so
celebrated. But Hamilton's frequent use of anonymous speech has received
scant attention, even though it has a significant bearing on American
politics today. Anonymous speech was a frequent feature of Hamilton's life
-
and of the American founding overall. Arguably the single most influential
piece leading to American independence was "Common Sense," the pamphlet
penned by Thomas Paine anonymously. Just over a decade later, Hamilton,
James Madison and John Jay co-wrote the Federalist Papers as "Publius.
These
were not unconnected or uncommon occurrences. The United States was built
in
large part on the exchange of ideas circulated anonymously. In the years
before the Declaration of Independence, anonymous speech was one of the
greatest weapons the colonists used against the tyrant King George III. As
for the Constitution, had Publius and others not anonymously dialogued in
newspapers about the equally revolutionary document, it might never have
been adopted, nor would have the subsequent Bill of Rights with its First
Amendment guarantee of free speech. The bottom line is that it is highly
probable that the United States would not even exist without anonymous
speech. Sadly, we have forgotten this lesson somewhere in the intervening
years. Today, anonymous speech is too often demonized, derided as "dark,"
or
otherwise dismissed for its lack of "transparency. Although there are many
examples, the brunt of these attacks centers on the anonymous speech used
by
nonprofit organizations on both the right and the left. These groups reach
out to the public with messages on a wide number of issues, and they can be
supported by individuals, corporations, unions and more. The nationwide
campaign against anonymous speech is, by and large, a campaign to force
these supporters' identities into the open. That was one impetus behind the
Senate's 2014 push for a constitutional amendment that would have given
Congress unprecedented authority to regulate - and therefore ban - speech
that touches on politics. Although the measure was defeated, it still
received the support of 54 senators and the president. At the federal
level,
the Federal Election Commission has issued or debated several rulings
designed to roll back anonymity in political speech. The threats are even
more numerous at the state level. In recent years, elected officials in New
York and California have demanded that nonprofits hand over lists of their
supporters to government officials. In other states, legislative proposals
or proposed ballot initiatives would force disclosure of all supporters to
nonprofit organizations that talk about political officeholders and issues.
No matter what form they take, these efforts would curtail the very speech
that Hamilton used so effectively. Political speech is a prerequisite for a
free and democratic society. In many ways, anonymous political speech may
be
the most important form of speech we have. It enables all of us to air our
opinions, doubts and thoughts without fear of retaliation from hostile
members of the community, from employers or from the government itself.
Some
opponents of anonymous political speech claim it enables businesses and
individuals to advocate in secret for government policies that benefit
themselves. But an idea aired in the public forum - whether it's suggested
by an individual, nonprofit or business - doesn't mandate an action. It
asks
people to evaluate the merits of the argument and to decide for themselves
if the proposed change would advance society. As then-Supreme Court Justice
John Paul Stevens wrote in McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission in 1995, "
'the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted
in the competition of the market.' ... Don't underestimate the common man.
People are intelligent enough to evaluate the source of an anonymous
writing. Perhaps we should have more faith that voters - and reporters -
are
smart enough to smell a rat. When anonymous speech flourishes, ideas that
are unpopular, controversial and revolutionary have a much better chance of
finding their way into the public square and gaining wider public
acceptance. Absent anonymous speech, America's political discourse would
become less vibrant, more impoverished. Hamilton proved it.
