Slashdot Mirror
Can Outing an Anonymous Blogger be Justified?
netbuzz writes "Absolutely, depending on the circumstances, yet a Florida newspaper's attempt to unmask 'a political group hiding behind the name of a fictitious person' has sparked outrage in some circles. Part of the reason for that outrage is that the paper posted to its Web site a surveillance video of the blogger visiting its advertising department, a tactic the editor says he now regrets. What's really at issue here is the right to publish anonymously vs. the right to remain anonymous. The former exists, the latter does not."
There is no requirement to identify yourself when you publish. That is "the right to publish anonymously". It is not a guarantee: You can't say "this is not to be linked to me" and expect someone else (like the government) to make sure that it isn't. If you want to stay anonymous, it is your responsibility, hence no right to remain anonymous.
And they're not required to be!
* Ninth Amendment - Protection of rights not specifically enumerated in the Bill of Rights.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Does that include journalistic sources? If someone were to follow up on Woodward and Bernstein and expose "Deep Throat", would that be fine by you? After all, he had his secret agenda as well... (Anger at not being promoted to be head of FBI after Hoover left).
Damn skippy it would! The country spent nearly 35 years trying to figure that Deep Throat was William Mark Felt, Sr. Every journalist interested in Washington politics wasn on the hunt for the identity of the real Deep Throat. Journalists that keep secrets from the public are betraying their audience. Sometimes the audience puts up with it like in the case of Deep Throat.
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
That is not what the ninth amendment says, nor does it reflect the intent of the writers.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Pretty simple: sounds like unnamed rights are not to denied or weakened because other rights were explicitly enumerated in the Constitution.
Lets see if that was the intent of the writers. Madison:
It has been objected also against a Bill of Rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration; and it might follow by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the General Government, and were consequently insecure. This is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard against the admission of a bill of rights into this system; but, I conceive, that it may be guarded against. I have attempted it, as gentlemen may see by turning to the last clause of the fourth resolution.
Hmm, he agrees with the orignal poster, not you.
Hamilton?
The exceptions here or elsewhere in the constitution, made in favor of particular rights, shall not be so construed as to diminish the just importance of other rights retained by the people; or as to enlarge the powers delegated by the constitution; but either as actual limitations of such powers, or as inserted merely for greater caution.
Wow, he agrees with the original poster too.
Actually, I'm not a local, so I did research. From an article in the St. Augustine Record:
"The law says that "any combination of two individuals or a person other than an individual" cannot spend more than $500 to expressly advocate the election or defeat of another individual without filing as a political committee."
Essentially, the paper knows that 1) there is a web site attacking a current candidate, and 2) a person going under the name of Lee Padgett also posted a 1/2 page ad against that candidate.
I'm guessing that a half-page ad costs more than $500. It does in my rinky dink hometown newspaper. The newspaper is making an educated guess that more than one person is behind the website. If that's true, then they have to register as a political committee or they're breaking the law.
It sounds to me as if the newspaper is doing good reporting through some crappy means. (Posting a video of a customer? Bad idea. Do the legwork, for God's sake.)
Sadly, no matter how true something is, or how much of an idiot the candidate Rich may be, you don't get to break laws. If you do, expect someone to call you on it. They can say what they want as individuals. They can register and follow the rules and say what they want. They just can't work together and pretend they aren't.