Hi Carl,
Points all well taken here. Honestly, this piece didn't make me believe that we
should cherish anonymous speech, but it did make me wonder about it's value.
Given the article, taken together with your words of wisdom, perhaps when it
becomes necessary to resort to anonymous speech we are dealing with a
government that is not acting at the consent of the government and thus,
no-longer worthy of existence.
Bob Hachey
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Carl Jarvis
Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2016 10:24 AM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Hamilton on Free and Annonymous Speech
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.
