vision2020
Re: Florida case involves on-line anonymity
Ry: Thanks for commenting.
> Don said:
> > I find it depressing that the ACLU would be defending the right to
> > defile people anonymously, under the guise of "free speech."
>
> Ry Jones said:
> What good is political speech if you can't say it without retribution?
> I wouldn't want to criticize Nixon or Clinton in a public way without
> being anonymous. Doing so would be a good way to get an audit!
Anonymity and the First Amendment seem to mesh strangely. In a despotic state,
you could still write mean things about the dictator on walls at night but we
would agree there was no real freedom of speech. The ACLU must be arguing that
the First Amendment not only protects a person's right to express opinion but
that third parties (those involved with providing internet service) must allow
this to be anonymous. (I'm sorry if this is off-track; I no longer have the
original posting at hand.) It still doesn't seem like a good idea to me, or
one grounded in the Constitution.
The beauty of the First Amendment is that we can express political opinions
openly, taking responsibility for them, and not fear retribution. I don't
think you really fear retribution for criticizing past and present presidents
publically, and neither do the other 95 percent of us who've been critical.
I'm glad we both support the ACLU. I hope there are complexities in this case
which, if I understood them, would convince me that the organization's
participation was reasonable. I suspect that everybody who participates in
Vision2020 is willing to defend the right to offer unpopular views, and that
at heart is what ACLU is all about.
The rest of my posting maundered on, for which I apologize. I was trying to
suggest that the Internet is in its early stages and I would regret having it
become as commercialized as television did, and is. But you may not regret
that -- and I'll defend to the death your right to watch Regis Philbin. (I'm
not saying you DO watch Regis Philbin; I'm just ... getting close to
maundering on again.)
Don H. Coombs
Back to TOC