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@verizon.net> 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.
>
>
>
>
No comments:
Post a Comment