A couple of my favorite blawgers, Houston criminal defense lawyer Mark Bennett and corporate litigation wunderkind and Deliverance body double, Dan Hull, have chosen to ban anonymous comments from their blawgs. Their rationale is simple. Either take responsibility for your words or get lost. The issue is similarly clear in Doe v. Reed, a case in which the Supremes granted cert.
Liptak at the New York Times provides the overview:
The new case arose from an effort to overturn a Washington State domestic partnership law known as the “everything but marriage” act. Opponents of the law gathered more than 130,000 signatures, enough to place a referendum on the November ballot.
Several groups asked the state to turn over the names, under its public records law, and two groups said they intended to post the names on the Internet. Their goal, according to a news release, was to encourage conversations among friends, relatives and neighbors that “can be uncomfortable for both parties.”
Protect Marriage Washington, a group that supports traditional marriage, sued to block release of the names, saying disclosure would probably result in “threats, harassment and reprisal.”
The district court enjoined. The 9th Circuit reversed. The Supremes stayed and granted cert. The argument in favor of blocking disclosure of the names on the petition are summed up succinctly.
James Bopp Jr., a lawyer for Protect Marriage Washington, said in a statement that the Ninth Circuit’s decision infringed “the rights of citizens who support a traditional definition of marriage to speak freely and without fear.”Putting aside the purely speculative nature of the fear of threats or injuries, Bopp is just plain wrong. We should fear that our public statements will bring public approbation, anger, disagreement, and all the possibly negative consequences that can flow from it. This is what prevents people from indulging our worst nature, our deepest prejudices, our angriest hatred.
“No citizen,” Mr. Bopp added, “should ever worry that they will be threatened or injured because they have exercised their right to engage in the political process.”
Signing a petition is clearly endorsement of a political position, a statement intended for public use. No one signs anticipating that the petition will be hidden away in a shoebox in the garage, but to be handed over and distributed to someone, usually in government, to make a political statement. While some signers feel pressured into it and don’t actually agree, or perhaps even care, with the position, that’s a separate problem of spineless courtesy. The only solution for such signers is learn how to just say no.
For those who sign because they agree with the position, believe that it reflects their views and that its worthy of letting someone with the power to redress their grievances know, tough nuggies. They can’t have it both way, amass political clout via a petition yet conceal with identities so that they face no consequences for their actions. Actions have consequences. Actions are supposed to have consequences, which is what prevents the other disinhibited from behaving like a blithering idiot. Most of us have a blithering idiot inside yearning to get out, if only we wouldn’t be held responsible.
The Bopps argue that people must be allowed to “exercise their right to engage in the political process.” Absolutely. But he argues that they need not worry that they will be accountable for exercising that right. Oh no. With rights come responsibilities. If his signers fear that their neighbors will hate them for asserting their views, a risk they’re unwilling to accept, then that’s good. It’s what stops people from doing things they secretly want but fear would be otherwise embarrassing, or mean, or evil.
We are becoming a nation of cowards, where cowardice is not merely a common attribute but one to be celebrated and protected. We embrace our right to be cowards, to assert our worst nature and bear no responsibility for it. Believe what you want, no matter how foolish or wrong it may be. That’s your right. But when you choose to assert it, own it. If the price is too high, then you can’t afford it.
This was meant to be the Land of the Brave. It’s time to knock cowards off the pedestal.
Likewise, the votes cast at the ballot box should be public.
Is voting, a civic duty, the same as asserting a political position for the purpose of persuading others?
Yeah!!!
I’ve been hopelessly screaming about this for years, Scott. Courts reflexively bow to an almost absolute “right to anonymity” that has not only outlived its usefulness, but bears little relation to the slim First Amendment reed on which it once rested — and ignores the modern reality of what publishing and reputation mean.
There are instances where anonymity is appropriate, though they are few. More to your point, it one chooses to be anonymous, then one should expect views not to be taken seriously. If someone lacks the fortitude to put his name to his views, then they aren’t worthy of much.
If this is applied to the petition in Doe v. Reed, anyone who wants to be anonymous should have signed “Yogi Bear” or some similarly meaningless name. But then, their signature on the petition would have been essentially worthless, and thus they get the anonymity they crave while paying the price.
Don’t you know Who I am? I am Mongo Publius! From Paducah. Never mind my real name. My brain has been touched by God.
You’ve clearly been touched by something. Not quite God. Certainly not by a woman. Disco fever, perhaps?
Bow before Mongo Publius! Or He will cast bolts, defame, and wear lavender shirts.
Note the kind of unbridled delusional irresponsible garbage that anonymous blogging and commenting attracts 95% of the time.