Tag: anonymity

Categories
First Amendment rights national politics & policies

Limits “Of” not “To”

anonymous, masks, privacy, freedom

When people talk about “limits to free speech,” do they know what they’re talking about?

“Is there a limit, in your opinion,” an audience panel member on Fox’s The Faulkner Focus asked former U.N. Ambassador and former South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley, “to free speech?” 

The questioner explained that “we all know you can’t go into an airport and shout ‘bomb,’ and yet, right now, you can chant, on college campuses, to ‘kill all the Jews. . . .’” She demanded to know what the limits are.

Freedom of speech is a term of art for the speech that liberty allows; speech involving actual crime — in planning — has always been (and should now be) illegal. 

But don’t demand limits to free speech. Instead enforce the limits of free speech. There is a logic to the notion.

How did presidential candidate Nikki Haley respond?

She said we never want to give up on free speech, but “the difference is when you are pushing violence.” Then Haley went to a more mainstream set of arguments blaming current ideological turmoil on misinformation online. Her response: End anonymity on the Internet. 

This struck many critics as rather extreme. In a “partial” walk-back, yesterday, Haley told CNBC, “I don’t mind anonymous American people having free speech; what I don’t like is anonymous Russians and Chinese and Iranians having free speech.”

But of course if all are not required to register to speak, name attached, then there is no way to catch the non-Americans.

As inheritors of a political and legal system that was achieved, in no small part, by pseudonymous speech — think Cato and Publius and the Federal Farmer — I suggest another kind of limit: caution.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with PicFinder and Firefly

—

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Categories
crime and punishment general freedom ideological culture moral hazard nannyism political challengers privacy Regulating Protest too much government

Don’t Enable Tyrants

Tor, anonymity, privacy, Venezuela, socialism, dictator, censorship, criticism, Maduro

If I deliberately help somebody to do evil things — and nobody is holding a gun to my head — I am thereby doing evil myself.

A person should not let himself be in that position. Not even if he’s “just doing my job” and looking for a non-evil job would be demonstrably inconvenient. To have a motive for doing a bad thing is not by itself exculpatory.

What provokes this observation is a newly amplified assault by the Venezuelan government on the rights of its citizens. The government is seeking to violate the right to peacefully read stuff on the Web by blocking Tor software, which allows users to elude government surveillance and reach banned websites.

Venezuelan dictators Chavez, now dead, and Maduro, still there, have never hesitated to stomp freedom in the name of a spurious greater good. Somebody like Maduro is certainly unscrupulous enough to go after Tor for thwarting censorship. So he fulfills that requirement. I doubt that he possesses very extensive programming ability.

Tor may not be perfect, but it’s pretty robust. You need substantial resources, such as those at the disposal of a government, to stop it. You also need to know what you’re doing. The coders on Venezuela’s stop-Tor team are probably smart enough to grasp the purpose of their work.

They and all other such collaborators should defect to the other side: that of programmers working to protect innocent people from government-sponsored cyber-assault.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

 

PDF for printing

 

Categories
First Amendment rights

Debate Versus Intimidate

Political donors often prefer to remain anonymous.

It’s not just shyness. Anonymity can protect you from unscrupulous political opponents. The higher your profile — especially if you’re persuasive, or your story contradicts some treasured “narrative” — the higher your risk may be.

At Breitbart.com, Mike Flynn writes that “non-disclosure of donors” is a shield inherited from “the civil rights struggle, when the government sought to protect donors from intimidation by groups like the KKK.” Nowadays, sundry leftist groups and government officials seem to be the premier intimidators.

Character assassination is just one hazard. Flynn discusses what happened, for example, to cancer patient Bill Elliot and insurance broker Steven Tucker. Elliot spoke publicly about how his coverage had been dropped thanks to Obamacare. Tucker, who helped Elliott get a new policy, also talked to the media about the situation. In short order, both men got notices from the IRS of impending audits.

Then there are the assaults on businessmen like the Koch brothers and Frank VanderSloot (whose case I’ve talked about before). VanderSloot was targeted by the IRS, the Department of Labor and a U.S. Senate office soon after the 2012 Obama campaign published a hit list of “bad” political donors — i.e., major contributors to the Romney campaign.

In light of such realities, it’s fine that espousers of political causes are sometimes pseudonymous, and that donors to them are sometimes anonymous. Every law-abiding individual has an inalienable right to make of himself a harder target.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Photo by arbyreed used under a Creative Commons license.

Categories
Common Sense

Shut Up Or Else

Political bullies often try to disguise or play down their intimidation. They’re not as blunt as playground bullies.

One exception is Tom Matzzie, a left-wing political activist heading up a new group called Accountable America.

The group’s goal is to bully major contributors to conservative campaigns. It’s been sending “warning” letters to such donors, threatening them with smears and legal harassment. Matzzie brags that he’s “going for the jugular.”

Example: On the Accountable America website, a donor is attacked for contributing to Tom Delay’s PACs in 2001 and 2002, noting that Delay was indicted in 2005. Guilt by association, you see — except there isn’t even any guilt. Delay hasn’t been convicted. Moreover, no legal or ethical questions have even been raised about this donor’s gifts.

Mattzie’s activities remind us of the value of anonymity, which can protect contributors to political groups from being subjected to such vindictive harassment.

I read that Accountable America doesn’t have to reveal its donors. And doesn’t. Gee whiz, whatever could they be afraid of?

Mattzie’s group is not alone in its attempt to muzzle political opponents and squelch political discourse. Groups like By Any Means Necessary and the Ballot Initiative Strategy Center invite supporters to harass people circulating petitions they don’t like.

I feel their pain. Two citizen activists and I are being threatened with prison time for having the gall to support an Oklahoma ballot initiative. Visit the Free Paul Jacob website for details.

Yep, lot of bullies out there.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.