The Morning Rant: Anonymity

Anonymity is vital for the proper functioning of a free society, regardless of legal protections afforded by the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights for free speech, unencumbered by government influence or interference.

But as the current social-media-obsessed culture demonstrates, anonymity from the majority is also vital. Doxxing and deplatforming and worse are now a staple of public discourse.

From: McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission (1995)

Under our Constitution, anonymous pamphleteering is not a pernicious, fraudulent practice, but an honorable tradition of advocacy and of dissent. Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. See generally J. Mill, On Liberty and Considerations on Representative Government 1, 3-4 (R. McCallum ed. 1947). It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation-and their ideas from suppression-at the hand of an intolerant society. The right to remain anonymous may be abused when it shields fraudulent conduct. But political speech by its nature will sometimes have unpalatable consequences, and, in general, our society accords greater weight to the value of free speech than to the dangers of its misuse.

Entrance into the public sphere as a politician (or the quaint term: public servant), or commentator, or pundit, or as an entertainment figure immediately expands one's megaphone far beyond that of the citizen, and it also affords one the protection of the organized media, the state and, sadly, in many cases, the long arm of the state or media that reaches out to punish one's interlocutors.

Against this we have one tool: anonymity. And who are the enemies of anonymity? Those who have other protections!

Here is a comment from a purported 1st Amendment lawyer, who thinks that anonymous speech should be held to a different standard. He was responding to some "famous" person whose name I barely know, but whose attack on anonymity is self serving and intellectually weak. I cited one obvious need for anonymity...The United Kingdom, which is busily imprisoning people for their speech! But there are countless others here in America that are powerful defenses of anonymity as one of the pillars of our free discourse in ideas. For example; "Whistleblowers" are sometimes self-serving and craven, but there are numerous examples of their importance in exposing government malfeasance.

And our current legal and political structure was debated in The Federalist Papers by "Publius," (Hamilton, Madison, and Jay), and rebutted by "Federal Farmer," whose identity is still not certain after almost 240 years!

If anonymity was an appropriate right to be exercised by those men, then it is certainly something worth defending.

In spite of the technological advances since 1787, instant communication via the internet has changed nothing...we are all still pamphleteers!

[Crossposted at CutJibNewsletter and X/Twitter]. If you folks who are on X/Twitter would follow us it would be much appreciated!

posted by CBD at 11:00 AM

| Access Comments