NJ Blogger Fights for Anonymous Free Speech

Ponca City, We Love You writes "A New Jersey blogger is fighting for his right to blog anonymously and the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) has asked a Superior Court judge in New Jersey to preserve the blogger's free speech rights as he faces legal threats from local government officials. On June 13, 2007, the New Jersey Township of Manalapan filed a malpractice suit against its former attorney Stuart Moskovitz, alleging misconduct regarding the Township's purchase of polluted land in 2005. The decision to file suit was met by a lively debate in the regional press and among local bloggers. One blogger who was particularly critical of the Township was datruthsquad. Attorneys for the Township issued a subpoena to Google demanding that the identity of this anonymous critic be turned over, along with datruthsquad's contact information, blog drafts, e-mails, and 'any and all information related to the blog.' Despite repeated requests from EFF to explain how this could be anything other than an attempt to out a vocal critic, attorneys for the Township have refused to withdraw the subpoena and informed EFF that it can go to court to object to the subpoena. In a motion to quash the subpoena, EFF has asked the court to block the township [PDF] in its attempt to uncover the identity of 'daTruthSquad' and allow the blogger to continue to write about this or any other issue without being forced to identity him or herself."

Comments

You are free to say anything you want

[Anonymous Coward]

But if you are slanderous or libelous, you should be held accountable.

Re:You are free to say anything you want

[ZWithaPGGB]

Public officials should not be protected in this way. They protect themselves with "Parliamentary Privilege", so they should not have protection from others.

In New Jersey, being identified as the person who outed corrupt officials could be lethal (mob).

Re:You are free to say anything you want

[Beavertank]

Ok, but before you get to dig through all of my personal information and destroy my anonymity you have to prove libel occurred.

Were the things I said injurious to the character and reputation of a person/organization? Were the things I said untrue?

If the answer to either of those is no you can take your accountability and go straight to hell.

Re:You are free to say anything you want

[djasbestos]

Indeed...I don't think it should be considered a tort if Lewis Black calls George Bush an asshole.

And datruthsquad doesn't seem at all libelous or slanderous (from what I read on his blog), so it sounds like a vindictive city council. Which, needless to say, is bullshit.

Re:You are free to say anything you want

[abigsmurf]

If you don't turn up to court to defend your writing against libel, if wouldn't be terribly difficult for a court to find most things injurious to the character and reputation of a person/organization. The paradox is that without a defence, you're not likely to be cleared but to mount a defence you have to give up anonymity. Hence why these things can't really have initial hearings. Only chance is if a judge thinks there's no case to answer.

Re:You are free to say anything you want

[Maljin Jolt]

But if you are slanderous or libelous, you should be held accountable.

Thank you for accountable informative comment, dear Anonymous Coward!

Re:You are free to say anything you want

[module0000]

IANAL.
Do you have to be present in the courtroom yourself, or can your attorney represent you without your actual presence being required in this type of suit?
Would a judge not see through their attempt to forcibly his/her anonymity by getting him to show up in court?

Re:You are free to say anything you want

[Nykon]

But remember. It's neither if it is true.

Re:You are free to say anything you want

[o0OSABO0o]

They do not appear to be alleging any kind of misconduct in the complaint just that the blogger is being anonymous -- and THAT is what they don't like.

Re:You are free to say anything you want

[andy314159pi]

destroy my anonymity you have to prove libel occurred.

IANAL

You have to prove more than just libel...
you have to prove that there was no malice in the intention, that you were not presenting an opinion (that you were presenting your statements as pure facts), and that the statements were false.
IANAL

Re:You are free to say anything you want

[Kadin2048]

The bar for slander and libel is much higher when the person being slandered is a celebrity (not necessarily in the Brangelina sense, but a celebrity within the community where the slander occurred). It's much harder for a person of note to show damage from an anonymous commenter on the Internet than it is for a normal person, who might only be known to others via the slander.

If you look at the court's treatment of slander and libel, at least in the U.S., the tend to err on the side of the speaker except in pretty egregious cases (and even in some egregious cases depending on the circumstances).

The law was never written to allow you to forcibly unmask anyone saying unflattering things about you, particularly if you're in a position of power or authority.

Re:You are free to say anything you want

[teh kurisu]

Just a practical consideration...

If legal proceedings are being brought because of slanderous/libellous things being written in an anonymous blog, then some work is required to ascertain the identity of that person. To reduce this work, it is logical to remove the right to anonymity. The problem is that, if writing anonymously is breaking the law, then you have to put that same work in to ascertain the identity of the writer.

Uh, I'm not explaining this very well... but by removing the right to anonymity you don't actually solve the problem at all.

Not that I agree with the sentiment. If you're not willing to put your name to your opinion, then your opinion's worthless.

- Chris Walker (yeah, like I was going to fall for that one!)

Re:You are free to say anything you want

[Uart]

I AM a Law Student...

Generally how it works is that for a case to proceed you must prove that you have a cause of action. Which means that you need to show BRIEFLY that the case isn't frivolous. Once you get beyond those initial pleading phases, however, the defendant needs to be actually involved in the case.

I don't see how that CAN be done anonymously.

I suppose you COULD sue "John Doe," but that seems a little silly.

Re:You are free to say anything you want

[igotmybfg]

It's extremely difficult for me to take anonymous libel & slander seriously, simply because it is anonymous. We all know that there are just too many people out there with time on their hands & nothing on their minds... or perhaps an agenda. Because of this, I don't usually think any less of an anonymously libeled or slandered party; ergo, no harm is being done to their reputation; ergo, no punishment is warranted.

Also, from a writer's point of view (whose purpose is to persuade his audience), rather than slander someone, I think it's far more effective to present clear, indisputable, objective facts (as much as possible), and then to highlight your negative opinions/reactions as your own perceptions, rather than presenting them to be facts. For example, rather than saying this:

igotmybfg's has the worst service of any restaurant in austin. they were rude to me, spit in my food, and laughed at my pocket protector.

I might say this instead:

I went to igotmybfg's for dinner on the evening of 3 December. I felt like their wait staff was inattentive to my needs. I didn't like their food at all. Everytime I dealt with the waiter, I felt uncomfortable, unwanted, and unwelcome. Because of these things, I am certain I will never return to that restaurant.

Which review gives you more information? Which would you rather read?

Re:You are free to say anything you want

[andy314159pi]

you have to prove that there was no malice in the intention

Ooops, I meant

you have to prove that there was malice in the intention

I am still not a lawyer. Probably a good thing....

Re:You are free to say anything you want

[brjndr]

IAAL, but not in New Jersey. This is a general synopsis, not specific to any state. Check with a lawyer to determine your own situation. Usually....

The truth is an absolute defense to defamation.

You have the other part wrong. The burden is on the plaintiff to show that there was malice, not on the defendant to show there wasn't. And that is only if the person defamed is a public figure. A city counsel person should be a public figure. Normal people who are defamed usually don't have to show malice.

Re:You are free to say anything you want

[conlaw]

Actually, you're right, ZWitha. Public figures (which would certainly include these officials) who allege that they have been defamed have to establish that false statements about them were made with knowledge that they were false or with reckless disregard to the truth of the statements. If

IAAL, but I try not to let it keep me from being a decent human being.

Re:You are free to say anything you want

[D'Sphitz]

christ, I couldn't read more than a paragraph into that blog without getting a headache. "English motherfucker, do you speak it?"

Re:You are free to say anything you want

[vertinox]

But if you are slanderous or libelous, you should be held accountable.

The problem if you get rid of the ability of slandering while anonymous you also remove the ability to tell the truth while being anonymous.

Throughout western history the ability to publish works anonymous has brought about great social changes during great repression by central authority. Eramus was often thought to have written works criticizing the Pope for his militant ways during a time when such texts would result in torture and/or burning at the stake.

Many of the Founding Fathers wrote works with pseudonyms in order to escape persecution from British authorities. In Eastern Europe during Soviet Occupation, anonymous pamphlets, shortwave radio broadcasts, and later fax machines were the only way to speak out against the repression.

Libel and slander are a bad thing, but they are small price to pay for having anonymity that lets you speak the truth when things are really that bad but you fear for your life or your family.

Re:You are free to say anything you want

[nomadic]

IAAL. But if anyone takes this as legal advice you're on crack.

The issue here is the subpoena is aimed at Google, not the anonymous person. I know in the federal courts a party can't object to a subpoena issued to a third party, unless the former has some sort of private right in the information/documents sought. In this case it might be, I don't know what any contract or license says regarding google's privacy policy. But in most places it would be up to Google to object to the subpoena, not the individual.

Re:You are free to say anything you want

[DustyShadow]

Sup, IAAlsoALS@ELS, 2L. What year are you?

Re:You are free to say anything you want

[Mr. Underbridge]

Indeed...I don't think it should be considered a tort if Lewis Black calls George Bush an asshole.

According to the Supreme Court decision in Falwell v. Flynt, that wouldn't be susceptible to libel because no one would interpret that literally to mean that George Bush is actually a sphincter. However, if you say that George Bush has embezzled a billion dollars, that would be libel if it's not true.

That's not to weigh in on this case, but there's some delineation between obvious insults and actual slander.

Re:You are free to say anything you want

[Petrox]

(IAALBTINLA--I am a lawyer but this is not legal advice)

More than this--anonymous speech is enshrined in our very constitutional framework: see generally The Federalist Papers.

Re:You are free to say anything you want

[Anonymous Coward]

no one would interpret that literally to mean that George Bush is actually a sphincter.

I'm not so sure. I think I could be persuaded to interpret that literally.

Re:You are free to say anything you want

[Fulcrum of Evil]

That's crap - anonymous free speech is a cornerstone of our freedom as a country. You think that if you embarrass someone powerful and they know who you are they won't retaliate?

Re:You are free to say anything you want

[OrangeTide]

Public officials (and everyone else) should be protected from false accusations that have no evidence and were said/printed with malicious intent. Notice I said "should". This isn't really the case today as far as I know.

Of course the judicial system must be kept separate from the legislative branch, and ideally politicians should not be able to influence a judge's decision any more than you or I. When things don't work this way it's pretty safe to assume you are operating in a corrupt system.

Re:You are free to say anything you want

[Mr. Freeman]

Slander and libel have different restrictions based on who the slander or libel is directed towards.
A libelous remark made toward an individual person can be construed as libel and punished quite easily.

However, when slander or libel is directed toward a highly public figure, which includes just about everyone in the government, one has to prove actual malicious intent for the remark to be considered libel. Also, if a guy is critical of anyone in opinion form "I hate so and so", "I think that policy xyz is stupid" then the remark isn't slander or libel.
This is why parody sites like http://www.theonion.com/ can publish false articles about the president, there's no malicious intent and it's made obvious that they're fake.

Re:You are free to say anything you want

[cayenne8]

"I don't see how that CAN be done anonymously."

Sounds like we need a totally anonymous BLOG website....connect through Tor or something, and no records or logs kept. I thought I saw something like that awhile back..but, was kinda primitive.

Re:You are free to say anything you want

[mdielmann]

Writing anonymously isn't against the law. So the question is, is the blogger straying from facts, or portraying opinions as facts? If he isn't doing those in his blog, then whatever he's doing out of his blog has little or no bearing. After all, if they knew who he was, they wouldn't be asking these questions.
Besides, if the RIAA has taught me one thing, it's that cases can be brought against John/Jane Does where it can be decided that there is enough merit to do so, and then the name can be subpoenaed. Granted, it seems that threshold is pretty low.

In short, if they haven't tried to bring a case of libel against 'daTruthSquad' as a John Doe, the subpoena is probably a chilling tactic.

No, I didn't read the article, and IANAL. This is /., and uninformed opinions are enshrined.

Re:You are free to say anything you want

[nurb432]

Were the things said opinions or what were believed to be true?

I think the same rules would apply. ( a take down notice might be appropriate on a false belief, but not a suit or loss of anonymity protection )

Re:You are free to say anything you want

[Kingrames]

In other words, it's okay to say anything as long as you approve of it.

Bullshit.
The first and fifth amendments to the United states constitution both apply here.
1. I can say whatever the fuck I want, without worrying about the consequences of doing so, because, damnit, it's absolutely necessary to preserve my other rights.

5. My words cannot be used against me in any court of law. If you intend to convict me of a crime, you need goddamn evidence. Testimony of any kind is UNRELIABLE no matter what. To ask someone to testify against themselves KNOWING:
a) they were not sworn to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help them god when they were bragging to their friends about the fish they caught or the derring-do's they've done or the women they've slept with.
b) I have a constitutional right to lie when I am out and about and having fun.
c) I may be wrong.
d) My attorney has advised me to admit to a crime I did not commit and hope for a plea bargain because 100% of all of the people of my skin tone and background and neighborhood who are charged with a crime are convicted.
e) You cannot even guarantee with 100% certainty that I am telling the truth if you have me in a large, claustrophobia-inducing machine that SCANS MY BRAIN.

Does it shock you to find out that nearly every single person convicted based on a confession while their attorney was present may in fact be innocent? It's true (and proven) in over 45% of the cases.

The problem is simple:
There is no way for this person to prove their innocence, and they are being judged by the people who will render a verdict based on the crime dramas they watch.
They are motivated to confess because their life would be better off behind bars and they would not be such a huge financial burden to their families.

As soon as a person's own testimony of any kind is used against them, their rights have been violated, for no other reason than that "somebody has to pay."

You really need to stop assuming that these people are guilty, nothing good comes from that.

So no. you should not be held accountable for what you say. Every single fucking word that comes out of your mouth is free. And it should stay that way. It should never be used as evidence in any way, shape or form, ever.

Re:You are free to say anything you want

[TooMuchToDo]

Law student, meet RIAA's "John Doe lawsuit policy."

Re:You are free to say anything you want

[Uart]

You can still be sued...

There is a case involving anonymous posters on Autoadmit/xoxohth.com...

Re:You are free to say anything you want

[beckerist]

To sum your post up concisely: the difference is the objectivity of the statement. You can't be charged/arrested for having an opinion. You CAN be charged/arrested for an untrue objective statement.

Re:You are free to say anything you want

[teh kurisu]

I'm not sure it's right to deny someone the means to retaliate based on what they might do.

Re:You are free to say anything you want

[Attila Dimedici]

It would seem to me that to the extent that the township has any right to this information (the township claims to believe that the blogger is the defendant, in which case it is possible that there are comments on the blog that will have bearing on the defendant's testimony), there are two possible reasonable answers. First, and preferable, Google is compelled to answer whether the blogger is indeed the defendant. If the answer is no, end of story. Second, and only acceptable if there is reason to believe that Google does not definitively know who the blogger really is, have Google present the information it has about the identity of the blogger to a neutral third party (the judge in the case, an appellate judge, a federal judge, other options could be suggested). Again if the third party concludes that the blogger is not the defendant, end of story.
However, I suspect that EFF is correct, and the township is trying to find out who the blogger is in order to penalize the blogger at some later date.

Re:You are free to say anything you want

[budgenator]

On June 13, 2007, the New Jersey Township of Manalapan filed a malpractice suit against its former attorney Stuart Moskovitz, alleging misconduct regarding the Township's purchase of polluted land in 2005.

that I understand, what I don't understand is what the John Doe AKA daTruthSquad has to do with the malpractice suit. Does a third-person's opinion about the financial wisdom of a government agencies' litigation make him a party to the litigation?

Re:You are free to say anything you want

[budgenator]

LiveJournal was just bought by Russians, that co9uld make serving papers interesting.

Re:You are free to say anything you want

[king-manic]

Public officials (and everyone else) should be protected from false accusations that have no evidence and were said/printed with malicious intent. Notice I said "should". This isn't really the case today as far as I know. The reason it ought not be is that such laws tend to be used to silence opposition. Notice how certain jurisdictions(china, parts of south America, parts of Africa, parts of Asia) have laws explicitly protecting the "dignity" of public officials. Current slander/libel laws are a bit softer on critics of public officials expressly to allow for criticism. A person declaring "Sean J everyman" shot a man may be libelous but accusations "Dick Cheney" shot a man likely not. Publishing frequent and repeated "false" accusations of a public figure is not allowed. Libel and slander will handle it if it's false, and malicious.

Re:You are free to say anything you want

[Fulcrum of Evil]

Who says they have the right to retaliate? You have to actually show illegal behavior before you're allowed to mess with them, and the target of anonymous blogging in this case is the government. What do you think a pissed off city can do to you?

Re:You are free to say anything you want

[budgenator]

I didn't think a government agency could sue for libel/slander anyways. I've heard of "Boss Hogg wannabes" trying, but usually they crash-and-burn in appeals.

Re:You are free to say anything you want

[fastest fascist]

How can you be sued if you can't be tracked down? I believe that was gp's point.

Re:You are free to say anything you want

[budgenator]

But if you are slanderous or libelous, you should be held accountable
but nobody suing for libel/slander, the suit is about legal malpractice. The township is saying the daTruthSquad is the lawyer, Muskovitz, that they are suing. Muskovitz says he is not daTruthSquad but the township says it wants Googles records to "prove" he is, but most likely they just want to know who daTruthSquad is.

Re:You are free to say anything you want

[jp10558]

I assume you are thinking either about freesites in Freenet, Syndie/eepsites in I2P or .onion sites via TOR.

Re:You are free to say anything you want

[Leftist Troll]

Sounds like we need a totally anonymous BLOG website....connect through Tor or something

The main drawback of putting your server behind Tor is that it's not visible to most users, the client needs to be running Tor as well. It could still work through word of mouth, but you're going to have a much smaller user base.

Re:You are free to say anything you want

[brjndr]

Also, that should be city 'council'. That's what happens when you type counsel a thousand times more often.

Re:You are free to say anything you want

[Leftist Troll]

I hate to reply to my own post, but I just realized how stupid I am.

The obvious solution is to have one server behind tor that the bloggers connect to, and another that grabs that data and publishes it on a regular web site for the general public to read.

Moral of the story, don't drink and post.

Re:You are free to say anything you want

[OrangeTide]

Criticism is fine. But there is a problem when an honest political candidate is attacked by people working for a dishonest one. Discrediting that person with exaggeration or out right lies. I think Barack Obama is feeling the effects of these dirty politics.

I'm fine with laws if they apply equally to everyone. While at the same time I do feel that it is my right to criticize public figures without fear of retribution. But the tricky bit is when someone like me is critical of a public figure, it comes off as one man's opinion. While when an elaborate plot to discredit a rival's reputation can appear to the layman as factual evidence. Such is the case where the news media is used to do certain presidential candidates dirty work.

Re:You are free to say anything you want

[ContractualObligatio]

"The problem if you get rid of the ability of slandering while anonymous you also remove the ability to tell the truth while being anonymous."

If this premise is true, then the rest of the argument follows. Can you provide evidence that this is the case? Citing examples of outright oppression does not provide any support to your assumption, as there was an absolutely no intent to separate truth from fiction in those cases.

Re:You are free to say anything you want

[StopKoolaidPoliticsT]

1. I can say whatever the fuck I want, without worrying about the consequences of doing so, because, damnit, it's absolutely necessary to preserve my other rights. Free speech is NOT absolute. You do not have the right to yell fire in a crowded theater, you do not have the right to lie under oath, etc.

5. My words cannot be used against me in any court of law. If you intend to convict me of a crime, you need goddamn evidence. Testimony of any kind is UNRELIABLE no matter what. To ask someone to testify against themselves KNOWING: Your words absolutely CAN be used against you in a court of law (statements made to the police after waving your Miranda rights, a manifesto you've created ala the unibomber, a diary of yours they obtained via warrant, etc). What they can't do is force you to get on the stand and testify against yourself.

Re:You are free to say anything you want

[keltickal]

Everyone knows that they are all mafioso in New Jersey anyway so they are surely guilty of something.

Re:You are free to say anything you want

[Seumas]

The article said the guy was being critical. Critique is not the same as libel or slander at all.

Re:You are free to say anything you want

[ScrewMaster]

because no one would interpret that literally to mean that George Bush is actually a sphincter.

They wouldn't?

Re:You are free to say anything you want

[ScrewMaster]

Why should they have a right to retaliate? Only the justice system has that right, and only after due process. Worse, in the case of a (probably corrupt) city council, that retaliation might take decidely not-so-legal form. People have been known to disappear when pissing off the wrong politicians.

Re:You are free to say anything you want

[jbengt]

More than that, though.

There is a higher bar for slander or libel of public figures. IIRC, you not only have to prove that the statements were untrue and harmful, you also have to prove that there was an intent to slander or libel.

YMMV, the above is about typical US law. Your laws, for example in the UK, may be much tougher against the potentail libelous and slanderous.

Re:You are free to say anything you want

[Romancer]

It's what amounts to stating something "to be taken as fact" VS an "opinion or interpretation".

I've been waiting for this to happen on Wikipedia for a while and still think it's likely for someone to bring the discovery atempt to get an editors identity after a slanderous edit on their page.

Re:You are free to say anything you want

[d34thm0nk3y]

"The problem if you get rid of the ability of slandering while anonymous you also remove the ability to tell the truth while being anonymous."

If this premise is true, then the rest of the argument follows. Can you provide evidence that this is the case? Citing examples of outright oppression does not provide any support to your assumption, as there was an absolutely no intent to separate truth from fiction in those cases.

What? To get semantic, the premise was a tautology so it is obviously true. I guess, therefore, you agree with parent.

The common sense answer would be that he listed a bunch of examples where anonymous speech is helpful.

Re:You are free to say anything you want

[russotto]

A person declaring "Sean J everyman" shot a man may be libelous but accusations "Dick Cheney" shot a man likely not.

That one has nothing to do with public figure law... it's because in the US, truth is an absolute defense to libel.

Re:You are free to say anything you want

[Kingrames]

Free speech IS absolute, even though the government doesn't approve of it.

You'll regret not having those rights when you die in a fire in a crowded theater because it's illegal to speak up.

And your speech being used against you in the court is completely at the decision of the Judge. Appeal on the grounds that your rights were violated and he might come to his senses. You know, like how every single confession obtained without a lawyer present is dismissed along with any testimony obtained, as soon as the defense attorney shows up.

Re:You are free to say anything you want

[eam]

> an honest political candidate

Sorry, that doesn't parse. What is this thing you mention?

Re:You are free to say anything you want

[computational super]

You do not have the right to yell fire in a crowded theater

Well, unless there's a fire, of course...

Re:You are free to say anything you want

[Manicwriter]

Sure you should, but there's a more important issue than that. I've been a print journalist for years, and I think any blogger who feels he/she has a right to snipe anonymously like this is seeking a double standard. Note this has nothing to do with the content of this blog in question. In fact, I haven't even read it, and know nothing about it. The point is, bloggers insist on being considered "journalists" in the same way that, for example, writers from the New York Times are. Well, guess what, kiddies. You wanna sit at the big table? Fine. You better have the balls to back what you say, then. That's what "real" journalists have to do, too. Every single day. No NYT writer gets to run anything on the front page anonymously. What makes bloggers so friggin special that they get protection?

Re:You are free to say anything you want

[Dread_ed]

How DARE you malign the sphincters of the world with your dastardly insinuations!

Re:You are free to say anything you want

[FewClues]

We need a new tag: "Police State" for all the invasions of our constitutional rights. This story would be a perfect post for it.

Re:You are free to say anything you want

[Joe Snipe]

I am curious, why do the lawyers on slashdot always preface their statements with "this is not legal advice"? Is there some sort of conduct rule regarding that?

Also if I am on crack can I use the above as legal advice? Will I be billed? :P

Re:You are free to say anything you want

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

I'm sure the Feds have machines at key points all over the Internet (to say nothing of direct feeds from various backbone operators), and thus it would be trivial to build a database of traffic to and from an anonymizer to correlate the messages with original senders.

Best nobody think of this, though. Thinking anonymizers are useful (even if the anon server owner is 100% truthful and reliable) works in the favor of the Feds.

Now go on about your business.

Re:You are free to say anything you want

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

...because secretly bribing Russian officials is something that the US government has no experience with, and is above doing in any case.

Re:You are free to say anything you want

[nomadic]

I am curious, why do the lawyers on slashdot always preface their statements with "this is not legal advice"? Is there some sort of conduct rule regarding that?

Of course it's kind of dumb, but it's an issue of "better safe than sorry." When a lawyer agrees to represent a client in a lawsuit, they lose the ability to freely back out of it if they decide later they don't want to represent them. The only way to get out is to request leave from the court. Now it's usually granted, but if it isn't you risk getting stuck with a client you hate, or won't pay you, etc.

When deciding whether an attorney-client relationship has been created, the test is basically whether the purported client reasonably believed the relationship was created. If you give legal advice, you risk creating that relationship. Additionally, if it sounds like we're giving legal advice to people in another state, that's the unlicensed practice of law.

On slashdot I don't think any of us really think we're going to get in trouble, but it's sort of a reflex that we don't want to risk losing.

Re:You are free to say anything you want

[OrangeTide]

They exist but are never successful in national politics, and are therefor not covered by the news media.

Re:You are free to say anything you want

[Mr. Underbridge]

I knew someone would take the bait. ;)

Re:You are free to say anything you want

[Joe Snipe]

Thank you that was very informative, and I apperciate your response

Can you feel it?

[scubamage]

First they can bully their way through to getting a critics name. Next they won't have to bully because it'll become common practice. Its sad... can anyone else feel it? One by one our freedoms are being taken away, and the majority of the American populace is too busy watching who is going to be the next American Idol or seeing who is Dancing with the Stars to give two shits. Its pathetic. This apathy and ignorance is probobly the biggest slap to the face to the founders of this country, even moreso than the current administrations' abuses of the constitution. If there are any fine, foxy Canadian ladies out there interested in adopting a cynical geek from the states, send me a PM, I can't stand living here anymore.

Re:Can you feel it?

[Recovering Hater]

Cake and circuses. That's what keeps the masses distracted. Meanwhile the powers that be scheme on how to build checkpoints in our neighborhoods in order to verify that we are carrying the proper papers. The ones we assign authority too will do this as soon as possible. Sure I may look like I need a tinfoil hat right now, but wait and see.

Re:Can you feel it?

[PrescriptionWarning]

You are being just as bad as the apathetic by taking on a cut and run mentality. I'm sure the founders of this country would hate you even more for being aware of the problems and not trying to get them solved. It's one thing to be ignorant of issues and quite another to know the issues and turn away.

Re:Can you feel it?

[scubamage]

Hmm, an uneducated answer. See, its hard to get citizenship elsewhere when you're massively in debt. However, there are very few uneducated jobs available in the US thanks to Clinton's push to have them eliminated. This leaves people no choice but to go to college, which for most people means tens of thousands of dollars in debt. This is my situation. So, as much as I would like to just renounce it, it isn't that easy (unless of course you're a troll who has nothing to really add to a conversation).

Re:Can you feel it?

[Khyber]

What freedoms are lost? I've scoured the Constitution and Right to Anonymity is not listed there.

Read the Constitution and Bill of rights again. Fourth Amendment - the right to be SECURE in *PERSON*, PROPERTY, and PAPERS.

Re:Can you feel it?

[andy314159pi]

the American populace is too busy watching who is going to be the next American Idol or seeing who is Dancing with the Stars to give two shits. Its pathetic.

I agree with your sentiment wholeheartedly. However, the problem isn't that people are obsessed with bad TV shows. The problem is that people don't know what to do about it. I am one of those people. If I wanted to do something about decreases in freedom of speech, I wouldn't even know where to start.

Re:Can you feel it?

[PrescriptionWarning]

Amendment 4 - Search and Seizure The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

maybe nothing against anonymity, but it could be closely related to search and seizure of "digital papers"

Re:Can you feel it?

[techpawn]

I think you where trying to get across the point of a chilling effect but you lost me half way through your little diatribe...

Re:Can you feel it?

[Broken scope]

Its rather amazing what a government can do to you without actually putting you in prison.

Re:Can you feel it?

[Thanatos69]

Because I'm sure they are going through so much trouble of finding him so they can give him a pat on the back...

Re:Can you feel it?

[scubamage]

Look at Roman history - the most corrupt years of their government came during the Roman obsession with the games.

Re:Can you feel it?

[tjstork]

maybe nothing against anonymity, but it could be closely related to search and seizure of "digital papers"

You read the B of R the wrong way. The government can't go after you because the Constitution doesn't give it the power to search digital works. The BoR only is examples of your rights, not a sole enumeration of them.

Re:Can you feel it?

[Qzukk]

Get back to me when they imprison this guy speaking out.

And then what will you do?

Re:Can you feel it?

[AmaDaden]

As much as I can feel our freedom slipping away a can also feel the pull in the other direction. People are getting pissed. One by one people are realizing that stupid laws like this are getting passed. Soon people will realize that they can do something about it. As it is the current administration got a good slap on the wrist with the last election for congress. More needs to happen but it's start. My hope is that with the internet it will soon be the norm that all the governments doings will be posted on line so that it will be nearly imposable for an elected official to so much as take a crap with out the people who elected him being able to know about it. At the very least I hope independent news web sites take over and kick out the lazy and stupid news outlets like CNN and Fox. I can't help but remember when Jon Stewart was on a panel of some CNN show and he just started yelling at the CNN journalists for not asking elected officials any real questions.

Re:Can you feel it?

[scubamage]

First they came for the Jews and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew. Then they came for the Communists and I did not speak out because I was not a Communist. Then they came for the trade unionists and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me.

Re:Can you feel it?

[fotbr]

You could start blogging about it and pretending it'll make one damn bit of difference.

Sure, it won't REALLY accomplish anything, but maybe you and a couple hundred other like-minded bloggers can all get online and whine about it and convince yourselves it matters.

Re:Can you feel it?

[Grimbleton]

Pick up your rifle. Band together with others of like minds. March on your government.

Once there are enough of us, we open fire.


Figuratively speaking of course. Violence has never been the way to secure your freedom from a corrupt government.

Re:Can you feel it?

[scubamage]

"Whatever you do will be insignificant, but it is gravely important that you do it." - Ghandi

Re:Can you feel it?

[tompaulco]

If I wanted to do something about decreases in freedom of speech, I wouldn't even know where to start.
Start by sending a letter to your local congresscritters. If they don't care about your privacy, then vote someone in who does. If there is no one to vote in that cares about your privacy, then get involved in politics. It's not as hard as it sounds. Unless you are in a really large city, there are probably empty board seats on the city council in which you could probably run unopposed.

Re:Can you feel it?

[Torodung]

This apathy and ignorance is probably the biggest slap to the face to the founders of this country, even moreso than the current administrations' abuses of the constitution. Yup. And any time we "refuse to discuss politics because it's stupid or biased or subjective," or claim that "all politicians are crooks," "nothing is done right in Washington" we add to that apathy, and turn more fully towards a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Everyone telling you that any whole party in Washington is a cadre of crooks is, in fact, a crook trying to get you to surrender your political power. There are a few crooks, quite a few, but on the whole, many more of them do just as we ask them to, and their best despite that. We have the government that meets our superficial apathetic attitudes towards all things political.

(*gets on soapbox*)

My fellow Americans, do what you do best. Follow the money. There's several trillion dollars per annum tied up in politics, and all that money equals vast power. If we want our country back, we need to put politics back on the table, and drop this 1960's attitude that politics are for weenies and crooks. Politics are important and it is our civic duty to discuss the "State of the Union." All the corporations with lobbyists at Washington know this. We don't bother, because discussions about politics are "unsavory" and politicians are "worthless."

The hippies were wrong. All the governments they formed have faded, or been incorporated. This huge government is still getting larger, and it is critical that its people demand its service.

Sure, we might get into fist fights over it at a party, but everyone needs to put politics back on the table. Now. Fist fights be damned.

--
Toro

Re:Can you feel it?

[mrchaotica]

Hey. Fuck you. You're the prime example of the idiotic reasoning that causes this problem in the first place!

Here's a newsflash: the Constitution does not enumerate all freedoms. It merely reiterates a select few of them!

Noticing that something isn't specifically prohibited by the Constitution doesn't mean the Federal government can do it; it just means it's not one of the particular examples Jefferson et. al. chose to give. On the contrary, the Federal government can do only those things which it is specifically allowed to do, because everything else -- everything else -- was reserved to the States or to the People!

Re:Can you feel it?

[bkr1_2k]

Man I hope you're right, but I think it's going to take a lot longer and a whole lot more lost. I've had, in the last month, several people tell me they'll gladly give up their rights to "catch the bad guys". When I query who decides who the bad guys are they have no answer. That scares the hell out of me.

Re:Can you feel it?

[Rakishi]

Hmm, an uneducated answer. See, its hard to get citizenship elsewhere when you're massively in debt. Or when you have utterly no marketable skills and would be a drain on the economy of any country you moved to.

However, there are very few uneducated jobs available in the US thanks to Clinton's push to have them eliminated. There are plenty of uneducated jobs available, at low salaries of course unless you have connections. Oh wait do you mean well paying, non-physical, safe and comfortable uneducated jobs? Yeah, blame Clinton not your own laziness or anything like that.

This leaves people no choice but to go to college, which for most people means tens of thousands of dollars in debt. A trivial amount, if you're capable of working hard and living well within your means you can easily pay it back within a year or two of graduation.

Re:Can you feel it?

[zappepcs]

Interestingly, right here on /. I have been modded troll for being a bit paranoid about the government's progressive march through our constitutionally guaranteed rights. Odd how one day paranoia is good, on another day it is not. Perhaps it's just the way it sounds coming out from under the tin foil hat? I think that now, more than ever, we need to be vigilant against any intrusion on our rights, any at all, no matter how small. All such forays into authoritarianism or fascism should be pushed back against as though it were the worst possible of all insults against the populace. While that seems rather paranoid and reactionary, I think that it is the only way to ensure that the constitution of the US remains in tact and functionally purposeful to the American public. Of course, that is just my opinion. I only hope I am not alone in thinking that way.

Re:Can you feel it?

[Rakishi]

The grass is always greener on the other side, eh?

It has always been like this and likely used to be much much worse (after all it used to be that no one knew of such things), except that you are likely a young twit who has never looked at history in his life. Hell do you not know of the red scare or even the the war on drugs that burned justice on a stake?

Welcome to reality, enjoy your stay and pleas learn some perspective.

Re:Can you feel it?

[bkr1_2k]

"Figuratively speaking of course. Violence has never been the way to secure your freedom from a corrupt government."

Tell that to the people of the Boston Tea Party, or Lexington, or Bunker Hill, or any other famous battle of the Revolutionary War.

Of course it could be said that we simply secured our freedom from one corrupt government by installing another. But that's a whole other argument.

Re:Can you feel it?

[plague3106]

Funny, I do recall one that says the Bill of Rights isn't an enumerated list too. So I guess the next step is to read our Founders' philosophy.

Re:Can you feel it?

[Grimbleton]

.... WHOOOSH!

Re:Can you feel it?

[Red Flayer]

Wow. I had not read that one before.

That one's going up on a plaque in my office.

Although, I'm not sure what side Gandhi would be on re: this article, to whit:

I believe in equality for everyone, except reporters and photographers.

--Gandhi

A modern Gandhi might say he believes in equality for everyone, except reporters, photographers, and bloggers.

Re:Can you feel it?

[ArcherB]

maybe nothing against anonymity, but it could be closely related to search and seizure of "digital papers"

What's to search and seize? They were posted on a public forum. If this were an email or other "private" communication, the 4'th Amendment would apply, but he/she made this post with the knowledge and intent that it would posted for all the public to see.

Re:Can you feel it?

[morgan_greywolf]

A trivial amount, if you're capable of working hard and living well within your means you can easily pay it back within a year or two of graduation. 1) Did you go to college in the U.S.? and 2) Did you pay for your college education out of your own pocket?

If the answer to either is "no," then I'd say you probably don't really know what you're saying. $30-50K is about average for a college education from a 4-year accredited private institution these days. A bit less if you go to a public school Unless you're willing/able to live with mom and dad for the first few years following your graduation, paying back that loan is a real bitch, especially when the economy ends up in the crapper following 9/11 and there are no jobs available with sufficient pay to both live on and pay back your loan. Then, when you end up not paying, the loan goes into to default, and you can forget about getting a mortgage on a house, getting a car loan, or anything else that 'normal' people do to make themselves financially stable that involves having good credit. Finally, the collection agencies catch up with you and make all kinds of nasty threats and try to force you into repayment programs you can't afford, so you have a nervous breakdown from all the stress.

Not that I'm bitter or anything.

Re:Can you feel it?

[davetd02]

I can't stand living here anymore.

This is hardly the first time in US history that local officials have bullied their way into a legal mess, and I'm sure it won't be the last. The difference is that the Internet makes it much easier for the EFF and other advocacy groups to publicize local abuses that in other eras would go completely unnoticed. The good news is that the court will resolve the dispute between EFF and the government according to our laws and constitution; we have a system of checks so that courts can stop overzealous government from infringing on individual rights. The court is working exactly as it is supposed to -- both sides are presenting their arguments and explaining why their actions are or are not legal.

If you don't remember, the free press in this country has always been in tension with the demands of government. It's a constant back-and-forth that over time has led to a reasonably stable balance of protecting individual rights. The examples go very far back: In 1798 (yes, "seventeen-hundred and ninety-eight") the Alien and Sedition Acts made it illegal to criticize the government, on pain of criminal prosecution. Lincoln arrested three newspaper editors for publishing stories he didn't like (two for publishing the story and one because he was in the wrong place at the wrong time) and suspended publication of the same papers for two days. The Sedition Act of 1918 made it criminal to criticize the government during World War I (repealed 1921). The list goes on and on.

National coverage of these issues is good, and the legal system is functioning as it should. One side is demanding more than the legal system can support and the EFF is properly standing up in a fair proceeding to stop it. The right answer isn't to leave the country, but to recognize that this is part of a long back-and-forth over rights that is an important part of American history. Have a sense of proportionality and your urge to flee will lessen. It's important that EFF fight the good fight here, but the fact that we're hearing about the story is a good sign -- it means the press is still doing its job. Anyway, you can do far more good here than in the vast frozen tundra of the far north.

Re:Can you feel it?

[PitaBred]

You mean I'm not entitled to a big screen TV and a brand new car, as well as all kinds of luxury items? I'm sure there was some line about that on my last credit card statement... that's as good as it being in the Constitution, right?

Re:Can you feel it?

[Atreusmonk]

The key amendments here are the ninth and tenth.

Ninth: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Tenth: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

This says to me that at there's at least a murky area this falls into. As said above, there is no explicit right to anonymity, but I think there's a definitely a case for one, and one should be implicit.

Re:Can you feel it?

[jythie]

Trivial? Most people spend decades paying back student loans.
Unless one lands a high paying job strait out of school and avoids things like a mortgage or paying rent, paying back 30-100k worth of debt can take a while.

Re:Can you feel it?

[Amouth]

odd - i was about to make the same refrence to his comment....

well not so odd.. as it is the truth - and a very scary one at that...

Re:Can you feel it?

[0100010001010011]

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

--

Ever day that passes I think more and more of these words. Over 200 years old and they're dead on. These guys knew what they were talking about. I'm also waiting on the day that "we" reach critical mass. Right now if I were to attempt this. I'd be a terrorist. Right now if I were to get 100 friends. We'd be terrorists. What happens when I get 1000 friends in every city. 10,000 friends. 100,000 friends?

--

Second. Politicians AND citizens seem to have forgotten who is boss. I don't work to serve a politician, a politician lives to serve me. If my boss walks into my office and says "You worthless piece of shit. You're useless. Get out and don't come back." I can't sue him. (Assuming he didn't come on to me, blah blah). I don't have a contract with my company. If at an annual performance review I'm told that I suck. I have to take it. I can't sue him because he doesn't think I'm doing my job right or he's critical of my job. I WORK FOR HIM.

"People should not fear their government, their government should fear the people"

Or more to the point:

"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty."

Re:Can you feel it?

[Rakishi]

1) Did you go to college in the U.S.? and 2) Did you pay for your college education out of your own pocket? Yup and mostly, financial aid paid most of it and a scholarship covered many odd expenses. I think in the end if not for the scholarship I'd have paid $30k or so for the whole thing. I worked summers, of course, to pay for some it.

If the answer to either is "no," then I'd say you probably don't really know what you're saying. $30-50K is about average for a college education from a 4-year accredited private institution these days. Okay, I could easily pay off $30-$50k within 1 year of graduation if I needed to as that is (more or less) how much I put into saving within one year of graduation. Also I'm quite lazy, if I needed to I could have easily doubled that amount at the cost of my free time. See I went for a degree, statistics, that won't be outsource in 2 years and which not half my university is going for. I also got a masters because it's sort of silly to not make that extra investment in my field given the returns.

A bit less if you go to a public school Unless you're willing/able to live with mom and dad for the first few years following your graduation, paying back that loan is a real bitch, especially when the economy ends up in the crapper following 9/11 and there are no jobs available with sufficient pay to both live on and pay back your loan. 9/11? Are you confusing the recession caused by the bubble bursting with 9/11?

Also what sort of degree did you get, are you one of the idiots who didn't think or plan ahead and just went for whatever crap they "felt" would make them money? Have you tried moving to get a job? Have you worked your ass (ie: if you have free time you're not trying hard enough) off to make money?

Then, when you end up not paying, the loan goes into to default, and you can forget about getting a mortgage on a house, getting a car loan, or anything else that 'normal' people do to make themselves financially stable that involves having good credit. Why would you need to do any of those things, do you have absolutely no financial planning ability at all? Pay for the car in cash, a cheap used car of course. You don't need a house, rent till you've paid off your debts. You're young (assuming you went to college after high school) and such frivolous wastes of money are unnecessary.

Re:Can you feel it?

[Chris Burke]

A trivial amount, if you're capable of working hard and living well within your means you can easily pay it back within a year or two of graduation.

What a fanciful, atypical and unrealistic view of college loans and life after college you have!

Lemme guess -- single engineer?

Re:Can you feel it?

[PWNT]

digital works would be 'personal effects' the gov needs to go through courts and have reasonable cause, to establish the reasonable cause they need to prove liable is occuring maliciously. to preemptively destroy its anonomousness (sp i know) is a violation of the rights given to the governemtn in the CotUSA. only after these things have been proven can a court legally even order a private company (a free man imbodied in a soulless group abstraction) to give up anything. Google should refuse on constitutional grounds. The eff should also handily win the case if no libel is occuring. The worse problem here is if the second party, google should give away the mans identity, google has a responsibility to obey court orders, leaving it in a difficult place should more pressure fall on google to cave.

Re:Can you feel it?

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

One by one our freedoms are being taken away, and the majority of the American populace is too busy watching who is going to be the next American Idol or seeing who is Dancing with the Stars to give two shits.

That's because TV is more important than fringe freedoms. At least, that's how the people democratically voted it. The founding fathers are going to have to deal with face-slaps because in a democracy, you simply can't control what people believe in. As soon as you do, the system becomes decidedly less democratic. If people no longer believe that privacy or anonymity are as important as (for example) security, no amount of constitutional safeguards will protect those rights from erosion.

For all of those people out there who agree with the founding fathers, I suggest you don't hide behind the constitution, and I certainly recommend you don't flee the country. You need to convince the people that what you believe is important is important to them. The constitution is only a goddamned piece of paper if it has no ideological oompf behind it.

Re:Can you feel it?

[Oligonicella]

Really? Electricians, welders, construction foreman, plumbers; all of those are jobs requiring college? Each one of which can be entered by becoming an apprentice and each one of which will pay over 50K/yr to an experienced worker. You too good to do that? Maybe collect garbage? Got a friend who does that for $25 an hour. Or, is that too lowly for you?

Have you actually worked yet? 'Cause it don't sound like it.

Re:Can you feel it?

[scubamage]

My guess is single progeny of an independently wealthy family. Considering the average income in the US is 40,000$ a year, an entry level job fresh out of college would NOT afford someone the possibility to pay back 30-50k in loans.

Re:Can you feel it?

[ArcherB]

As said above, there is no explicit right to anonymity, but I think there's a definitely a case for one, and one should be implicit.

The original post bitched that all of our rights were being stripped away. Personally, and maybe I'm wrong here, I never knew we had a right to anonymity. I looked it up, but couldn't find it in the Constitution (as I said). If we do have the right to anonymity, then I need to go rip my name off my mail box and my license plate off my car! If the fourth amendment means that I can post speech in a public forum anonymously, then my name should not be in the county records as the owner of my address (take that property tax man!!). My marriage license should read "the bearer of this document is married to the other bearer of this document...". I should be able to buy a gun without telling people who I am!

Assuming that anonymity is a right opens a big-ass can of worms that our system is not ready for. Everything from our jobs and homes and bank accounts to our credit scores and criminal records are tied to our identities. If we have a right to anonymity, then all of this goes away. How can I claim that I am the person who owns my home or that I am the parent of my child after someone sues the government to remove all names from public records? Having an identity is the complete opposite of anonymity. Identity is used to guarantee rights and protect property.

Re:Can you feel it?

[scubamage]

At least in our state you're more than likely never going to get a position in these fields without joining a union, and all of the unions (that I know of at least) require you to have gone to a trade school, and served as an apprentice for a set period of time.

Re:Can you feel it?

[AmaDaden]

I feel that I should also say something about the generational part of all this. The generation who grew up with the internet such as my self has many people who are hyper-educated by the Internet. By this I mean when ever we have any question we go and find the answer to it on the net. Hell it does not even have to be a question. We just go and learn about things that we become randomly interested in. For instance I found out today that Poinsettias being toxic is a myth. My friends and I all spend hours on Wikipedia just reading for the fun of it. So when ever we are having a conversation at some point someone is likely to bring up some obscure fact that no one could posably know with out either being on the net all the time or being an expert in that field. Now I don't think that this means in the future all people will be this educated or that the useless facts I learn on a daily basis will really matter much. The point is that I do look for answers to my questions. So when I have a question that really does matter I will not just depend on what little I am told but I will go out and learn about the issues and make as informed a choice as I can. I feel that this kind of daily learning is non-existent in most people who grew up before the internet. They very able to do this kind of learning but because it is not a habit they just don't.

Re:Can you feel it?

[Harmonious Botch]

Its rather amazing what a government can do to you without actually putting you in prison. What is really amazing is how much you can do to them before they can put you in prison. Here in the US - despite the current trend toward tyranny - you can do a lot that would get you imprisioned or even executed in many other countries.

Re:Can you feel it?

[Creepy Crawler]

--I believe in equality for everyone, except reporters and photographers.

I'd argue that they are the overseers of how governments, corporations, and groups in general run.

Still, Ghandi's other quote --- "Whatever you do will be insignificant, but it is gravely important that you do it." I take to heart..

I strive to be like one of the best unknown people... the Unknown Rebel.

Reading the text and the picture still makes my eyes mist up. No matter how big they are, and how small you are, you can still make a difference. I think that sentiment is what is missing in the US today...

Re:Can you feel it?

[darkmeridian]

Can we stop using the phrase "cut-and-run"? It's empty political rhetoric coopted by those who associate realism with cowardice.

Re:Can you feel it?

[m2943]

What freedoms are lost? I've scoured the Constitution and Right to Anonymity is not listed there.

Sure it is. It's listed right here:

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Re:Can you feel it?

[jdjbuffalo]

My response to people willing to give up their rights so easily is usually to quote Martin Niemöller:
First the Nazis came...
First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me--
and there was no one left to speak out for me.

Re:Can you feel it?

[mrchaotica]

So, I think this would fall under reserved to the States. Your words, not mine.

That would be a good point, except that you mentioned the Constitution first.

Anyway, the point I'm trying to make is this: when evaluating a government action, we as citizens should assume that it's unconstitutional first, and then evaluate it to see if it's otherwise. You appeared to be arguing for the backwards perspective instead, that we should assume that anything the government does is okay until somebody proves otherwise. That's a really fucking bad perspective to argue for, because it encourages tyranny.

The rule of thumb, in order to encourage a free society, should be this: individuals have the presumption of innocence; governments have the presumption of guilt.

Re:Can you feel it?

[Grandiloquence]

Specifically, they would have said:

"If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." -- Samuel Adams

Re:Can you feel it?

[morgan_greywolf]

Nope. 26K/year seems a bit exhorbitant, but I've been out of school for more than 5 years.

Re:Can you feel it?

[Jherek Carnelian]

Trivial? Most people spend decades paying back student loans. If you are hurting for money there are alternatives.

Go to a community college for your first two years.
Then transfer to an in-state university for the rest.
Sure it doesn't have the cachet of going halfway across the country to a name-brand school, but it will get you 90% of the way there for 10% of the cost.

If you do have the money, then go ahead and spend it on name-brand schools just like you spend it on name-brand clothes, etc.

Re:Can you feel it?

[ajs]

First they can bully their way through to getting a critics name. Next they won't have to bully because it'll become common practice. Its sad... can anyone else feel it? One by one our freedoms are being taken away Oh please. This is a battle that has gone on as long as this country has had a free press (e.g. longer than it's had the first amendment).

It's new ground when it comes to the Web, so we have things to iron out, but there's no one getting the jack boots ready based on this case. It's about as routine an evaluation of the press's relationship to the government as you're likely to see and comes to the courts about every 5 years.

Re:Can you feel it?

[Achromatic1978]

Okay, I could easily pay off $30-$50k within 1 year of graduation if I needed to as that is (more or less) how much I put into saving within one year of graduation.

What's amusing is that you honestly appear to think you're not an edge case, and that most graduates should be able to put aside $50,000 a year in savings. Apparently you believe that across the board, given a roughly twenty per cent tax rate, that the average wage of a college graduate is bearing in on $100,000.

Wow.

Really?

Let's take a wee peek at MIT. Hardly a bottom of the barrel college, and bear in mind they only offer figures from 2003-2005. In 2003, of 115 four year graduates surveyed, not one made more than $94,000. The median was $54,000. 2004, still, no-one had topped a $100,000 salary, though the median climbed slightly. In 2005 a MIT graduate could expect to make $59,000 their first year out of college.

And yet here you are, lambasting people for not being able to save $50,000 their first year out of college? I'm impressed.

Re:Can you feel it?

[Zigurd]

It is a surprisingly common error - you hear it on the news all the time - that the Constitution "gives" you rights that are listed in the Bill of Rights. That simply isn't so, and it says so right in the Bill of Rights:

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Which leaves one to ask: If 20%, one fifth, two out of ten of the first ten amendments are devoted to preempting a common but nevertheless illiterate error about the meaning of the Bill of Rights and the sense of the whole of the Constitution, why isn't this error just as painful and potentially lethal as ignoring "Danger, high voltage!" signs?

Re:Can you feel it?

[yusing]

Ghandi fucked up. What you do is NOT always insignificant. (Try reading about the 1960s).

Rock on dudes & dudettes. The mufu's are already worried sick (see Nat Review)

Re:Can you feel it?

[bkr1_2k]

Again, they think it's "not like that. This is America." They fail to see the significance, of the quote you mention, which scares me even worse than the willingness to give up their rights in the first place.

Re:Can you feel it?

[mrchaotica]

Whoops, I stand corrected. s/Jefferson/Madison/

Re:Can you feel it?

[ArcherB]

What's the difference between a privately-owned LAN-only BBS and a privately-owned internet-accessible one when it comes to the government making demands?

The owner.

If Google refused to give up the data without a warrant, then they are within their rights. Google owns the data, not the individual making the post.

Also, the Internet is not privately owned. Google may own the servers that hold the data, but not the Internet itself.

Re:Can you feel it?

[jdjbuffalo]

I love what you said but I do have one nit to pick. I'll explain it as an expansion on your thoughts regarding the current state of Washington.

I do believe that most of Washington is full of crooks but the reason that it's this is because of the political apathy in this country. As a whole we just don't care enough about it. The fact that over 90% of incumbents are reelected helps prove this out. If we wanted to send a real message that we are still incharge and expect them to listen to us instead of the lobbyists then we need to switch this around to 10% being reelected and 90% new blood. If we did this every once in a while (say 8-20 years) then you would see a big title wave of change in Congress.

One addendum, I realize that this one move alone won't fix our broken political system (I'm not that naive). There are several other things that need to be done. Here is a short list:
1. Several new amendments for things like explicit privacy, no gerrymandering, new voting process, a President not being part of a political party (for stricter separation between Executive and Legislative branches), no lobbying (or very very strict rules)
2. More processes for voicing your concerns to your representatives (I have yet to flesh this one out)
3. Find a way to reign in the media companies so they are not such big propagandist entities (i.e. remove the profit motive in journalism).

Re:Can you feel it?

[Chris Burke]

Okay, I could easily pay off $30-$50k within 1 year of graduation if I needed to as that is (more or less) how much I put into saving within one year of graduation. Also I'm quite lazy, if I needed to I could have easily doubled that amount at the cost of my free time. See I went for a degree, statistics, that won't be outsource in 2 years and which not half my university is going for. I also got a masters because it's sort of silly to not make that extra investment in my field given the returns.

Ah more or less as I suspected. You do realize that if everyone took your advice that your degree would not be as rare and thus it would not be as good for making money? That, basically by definition, your case is atypical?

And indeed it is atypical, as $50k annual gross is a good starting salary for a first job after college. If you could actually put $50k in the bank then you are making a lot more than most new college graduates.

Also what sort of degree did you get, are you one of the idiots who didn't think or plan ahead and just went for whatever crap they "felt" would make them money? Have you tried moving to get a job? Have you worked your ass (ie: if you have free time you're not trying hard enough) off to make money?

It's pretty amusing hearing you say that people who have free time are not working hard enough, while you yourself were able to accrue a large savings while being admittedly lazy and having time off. How can it work that you use yourself as an example while your own words show that you must know how atypical you are? Not everyone can do what you did (and if they did it'd stop working), not everyone is in your situation, not everyone is so fortunate. Recognize this and see how other people's lives work or you aren't helping anyone.

Me? I don't have to worry about loans, as I got paid to attend a top engineering university through an MSE, and scored a high-paying job right out of school. But I'd have to be a real ignorant ass to assume that anyone who can't duplicate this is lazy.

Re:Can you feel it?

[Kazoo the Clown]

For one, I guess he could play the "I'm Spartacus" game and post a bunch of anonymous inflammatory comments towards the township of Manalapan and see how many other bloggers you could get to do the same...

Re:Can you feel it?

[Belial6]

Uh, you mean like the founding fathers did when they decided they couldn't 'fix' the English government, so they decided to leave it and make their own?

Re:Can you feel it?

[jdjbuffalo]

You're not alone.

We do need to push hard against the coming darkness.

It only sounds tin foil hatish from people who are oblivious to what's going on (most of America, but hopefully a lot less so on Slashdot--even though the moderation sometimes says otherwise).

Your great posts are one of the reasons I've friended you. :)

Re:Can you feel it?

[jdjbuffalo]

Wow. So many good posts in this thread today (And a lot of the Mods are apparently asleep). Thanks. //Friended

Re:Can you feel it?

[Rakishi]

Well not trivial but not all that difficult either. Get a degree that pays well and work your ass off on it, including in high school and after you graduate. Live frugally/well within your means.

Most people spend decades paying back student loans. Decades? Christ what the hell is wrong with some people, oh wait now I see...

Unless one lands a high paying job strait out of school and avoids things like a mortgage or paying rent, paying back 30-100k worth of debt can take a while. Mortgage? Why the hell would I want to take out yet More loans when I am still paying off my current ones. Oh wait, that's right you're not a true red blooded American unless you make sure the next 10 generations of your family will have to pay off your loans.

Re:Can you feel it?

[lwsimon]

I should be able to buy a gun without telling people who I am! In a free state, you can.

Re:Can you feel it?

[sexconker]

"Violence has never been the way to secure your freedom from a corrupt government."

The thing with violence and freedom is when you stop threatening violence, you start losing freedom.
American Revolution 2 by 2012. Bigger, badder, and 40% more extreme than the original.

Re:Can you feel it?

[mOdQuArK!]

Chain of reasoning:

Amendment IV (and probably V) -> implied right to privacy -> implied right to anonymity

Of course, each link in that chain has been, is, and will be argued in the courts,
with varying degrees of agreement on their validity.

Re:Can you feel it?

[Rakishi]

Lemme guess -- single engineer? Close enough, not my fault if you spent tons of money on something with little future return (a worthless degree) or got married early to an unproductive spouse.

I also live well within my means, people have actually said it's impossible to live comfortably in my area with what I spend yet I do.

Re:Can you feel it?

[Chris Burke]

Close enough, not my fault if you spent tons of money on something with little future return (a worthless degree) or got married early to an unproductive spouse.

I got paid to go to school, rack up a nice salary, and am still single, thank you very much you arrogant douche. I'm just not so disconnected from reality that I think my case is (or possibly could be) typical.

It's not about it being "your fault", it's about your individual case being a terrible example to extrapolate from and assume that anyone who finds college loans burdensome is either lazy or foolish.

"Unproductive spouse" lol. I'm going to follow up my previous guess with one that the "single" part is going to be true for quite some time.

Re:Can you feel it?

[Torodung]

1. Several new amendments for things like explicit privacy, no gerrymandering, new voting process, a President not being part of a political party (for stricter separation between Executive and Legislative branches), no lobbying (or very very strict rules) Hoo boy, good luck on the "gerrymandering." That's a fine old tradition. I think the district drawings should be public, transparent and multipartisan (note: not bipartisan). That means that any party which takes an interest should be at the meeting, with public and ample notice.

At this point, 85% of the House of Representatives is by virtual appointment. I've taken to calling them the "House of Rabble." You should see the mouth-breather from my district, and the district next door, permanent fixtures of the Democratic machine here. You couldn't get anyone else elected if you tried. Guess who writes the rules?

So much for sweeping most of them out of power. That sort of thing always takes guns. It isn't worth it.

2. More processes for voicing your concerns to your representatives (I have yet to flesh this one out) Right. That's what PACs are supposed to do, but they frequently don't. You have to put the common citizenry on a level playing field with corporations if you want a government that is anything other than a thinly veiled plutocracy.

The problem is, poorer folk need to work, they need to eat. They don't have time to take up full time pro bono lobbying work to compete with corporate interests. I don't think it's practical to ban the corporations, so we need a system which levels the playing field for the common man.

Groups like EFF, featured in this article, are a nice start. I donate to them. I vote with my money, as well as at the booths.

3. Find a way to reign in the media companies so they are not such big propagandist entities (i.e. remove the profit motive in journalism). Well, others have tried to remove capitalism, but I don't think socializing journalism will help. Why? Back on topic. Look at what happened here. This person (daTruthSquad) blogged, the government immediately wants his I.D. because they don't like what he said. In fact, they're acting as if they're entitled to it.

So what happens when the government controls the incentives and therefore owns the press? Pravda and/or Fox News. Take your pick. This guy would have been quietly identified and blackballed in his neighborhood, if he even had access to publication. Information control always leads to totalitarianism. Whenever anyone says, "I need all the information," in the grave manner that our government has, I wonder if someone doesn't have a "God complex."

You have to an incentive system independent of the government, but backed by it (U.S. treasury), or government becomes "Big Brother." As soon as the treasury becomes the source of the power, instead of a guarantee of stability for all, its all over. It's been a long time since anyone in the U.S. government seemed like they wanted to do anything other than make a splash or pick a fight. The media circus is affecting the way politicians behave. They're supposed to be setting policy for stability, or to correct serious problems. Stability and the status quo are different animals, of course, as are a gentle walk and a funeral.

The "profit motive" is the best independent system we've got, and it's getting pretty well inbred with the government at this point. People don't understand well enough how to vote with their dollars.

I support the EFF. They aren't perfect, but they're better than no defense at all.

--
Toro

Re:Can you feel it?

[ArcherB]

Chain of reasoning:

Amendment IV (and probably V) -> implied right to privacy -> implied right to anonymity

Of course, each link in that chain has been, is, and will be argued in the courts,
with varying degrees of agreement on their validity.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. Since we are talking about posts in a public forum, I don't see how the fourth would apply, unless Google was refusing to give up this person's ID, then a warrant would probably be required. But being posted in a public forum, nothing is being searched or tapped. Now if they were seeking access to this guy's email or other form of perceived private communication, then I think the fourth would definitely apply. But this was a public posting. There is no perception or expectation of privacy when speaking in a public forum.

As for the fifth, how could a person be held for anything at all if anonymity is a Constitutionally guaranteed right? Also, in this case, no charges have been filed, no one has been indicted and no one has been held to answer for anything. Finally, no one is claiming a capital of infamous crime.

I think what may apply is this one:

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. Since there is no right to anonymity in this case, there is nothing to prevent a state or local government from seeking this poster's ID. This power is not forbidden to the United States by the Constitution.

Re:Can you feel it?

[Rakishi]

I got paid to go to school, rack up a nice salary, and am still single, thank you very much you arrogant douche. I'm just not so disconnected from reality that I think my case is (or possibly could be) typical.

It's not about it being "your fault", it's about your individual case being a terrible example to extrapolate from and assume that anyone who finds college loans burdensome is either lazy or foolish. I am extrapolating from many cases of people I know from various places, I know I'm far from normal. I only said that if you find college loans burdensome then you probably made some bad decisions somewhere. I have seen tons of people make various bad decisions that caused them problems later on including myself. Had they not made those bad decisions, which were often easily avoidable, then they wouldn't have had such problems.

Interestingly enough the main bad decision is assuming that because the average salary for degree X is Y they will make Y simply by having that piece of paper. They ignore the networking needed, the hard work needed, actually knowing the course material and so on.

"Unproductive spouse" lol. I'm going to follow up my previous guess with one that the "single" part is going to be true for quite some time. If you marry someone who you need to support (note I never said all spouses are unproductive or anything like that) then that's your choice and any problems are your fault.

Re:Can you feel it?

[cduffy]

Mortgage? Why the hell would I want to take out yet More loans when I am still paying off my current ones. Oh wait, that's right you're not a true red blooded American unless you make sure the next 10 generations of your family will have to pay off your loans.

Ya know, the point of a mortgage is to actually be able to acquire an otherwise-unaffordable, generally appreciating asset, which can then be passed down to your family's future generations. It's quite a different thing from general consumer debt -- and being for a fixed period, there's no question of any future generations being on the hook unless one is atypically short-lived. Moreover, most of the funds put into paying off a mortgage would typically be spent on rent, rather than saved, in the case where no mortgage existed.

Except for the folks who end up taking out a reverse mortgage on account of failure to plan for retirement; in that case, all bets are off.

(I have a [fixed-rate, generally sane] mortgage, and am right now paying for my wife to go back to school. Yup, it's more debt -- but I'm quite certain it's the right thing to do; the present value of the increase in her lifetime earning potential will far more than offset the increase in interest paid, even after taking compounding into account. And I don't carry consumer debt; spending is tightly maintained, and the credit cards are paid in full every month).

There are cases where having outstanding mortgage or school debt can be the sane and reasonable thing to do; painting with such a wide brush ("You have both a mortgage and outstanding school loans? Stupid financially irresponsible American!") is frankly inappropriate.

Re:Can you feel it?

[Vitriol Angst]

The Constitution doesn't actual declare YOUR freedoms. It assumes that all individuals are FREE, and then involves itself with what limits there are on government to infringe on these freedoms. Businesses and Governments aren't supposed to have any RIGHTS for instance, not spelled out. Humans have ALL rights.

So, if there is no law that assumes the right to infringe someone's privacy, then is shouldn't exist.

Re:Can you feel it?

[Rakishi]

Well I'm making enough to do that but that's a different point and I never said I am talking about the average (simply what is possible for many people). Also a BS degree is almost worthless from some programs, I went for a MS myself for that reason.

Even at $50k you can pay it back in 4-5 years, possibly less since your salary will increase with time. If you do consulting or something else (networking is joy) then you can do so even faster.

If you're no good enough to get a great job or pay your loans of in reasonable time, and let's be honest not everyone is, then you may have done better by going to a less expensive school (or transfered if needed).

Re:Can you feel it?

[Chris Burke]

I only said that if you find college loans burdensome then you probably made some bad decisions somewhere

Actually you said that they would be a drain on society no matter where they went. Maybe I'm quibbling, but that is a heartless and for that matter ignorant view.

I am extrapolating from many cases of people I know from various places, I know I'm far from normal. I only said that if you find college loans burdensome then you probably made some bad decisions somewhere. I have seen tons of people make various bad decisions that caused them problems later on including myself. Had they not made those bad decisions, which were often easily avoidable, then they wouldn't have had such problems.

You are extrapolating from a limited sample of anecdotal evidence strongly influenced by selection bias.

Interestingly enough the main bad decision is assuming that because the average salary for degree X is Y they will make Y simply by having that piece of paper. They ignore the networking needed, the hard work needed, actually knowing the course material and so on.

Even if they do make the average salary for the degree that leaves many people without the income to put away large amounts of savings or pay off their student loans in only a year or two. Despite working hard and knowing the material, etc. And before you repeat it again, it is impossible for everyone to take a degree for which this isn't true, because if they did then those degrees would no longer be worth as much! There is not an 80k job waiting for every college grad if only they had taken the right degree! Those jobs don't exist, and they will not spring into existence merely by more people being degreed for them!

If you marry someone who you need to support (note I never said all spouses are unproductive or anything like that) then that's your choice and any problems are your fault.

It was your implied criterion for choosing mates and the resulting consequences to your dating prospects that I was getting at. "Sorry honey, I can't marry you until you've acquired a degree in a subject and gotten a job which earns in excess of the median college graduate salary" is sure to win over your beloved's heart. But of course it's easy to say that you simply won't ever be in that situation if the "beloved" is purely hypothetical, now isn't it? Some people love someone despite their financial solvency, and implying that doing so is a fault speaks volumes.

People with families will find college loans more burdensome. That's how a normal person would put it. There's no reason to attribute this to being a personal failing unless you are being needlessly heartless and arrogant. Not being financially viable to start a family for many years after graduating would imply to some that it is the system which is faulty.

Re:Can you feel it?

[Workaphobia]

Your steadfast adherence to the US Constitution is inconsistent with life as we know it. As much as I'd like to claim Constitutional rights left and right, if we implemented a strictly Constitutional government we would have something that does not even closely resemble this nation at any point in its history since the Civil War (If memory serves, the 14th Amendment was the first one to cause the Bill of Rights to apply to the states in addition to the central government, something that was not intended by the founders). A very, very small fraction of the national government's activities today can be directly related back to their Constitutional authority, so it would be improper for you to pick and choose which functions you allow the government to perform under the Elastic Clause and which functions you require remain unregulated, while justifying them with a Constitutional argument.

That said, my favorite freedoms are the right to privacy and, el numero uno, right to free expression, and I will be very sad when those two disappear. At the same time, I don't give a damn about things like gun freedom. Anonymity can be a dangerous thing, but it is more important to have it than to be saved a little slander here and there.

Re:Can you feel it?

[jdjbuffalo]

I may not like everything you said (as in cognitive dissonance) but sadly it's true.

I try to support those groups that I think helps protect us from the Government stomping on our rights like the EFF and to a degree the ACLU. You're right that they aren't perfect and they don't always address everything that I would like them to but I can't imagine if we didn't have them (or some organization like them) in our country.

I would love to find a better motive than profit for media companies but I'm not sure what it could be...(as you've pointed out, it needs to be separate from the government or it breeds corruption).

Thanks for the insight. Friended.

Re:Can you feel it?

[Rakishi]

Well good point although rent can probably be cheaper (on the lower end, worst case is you get a roommate) than a mortgage especially in areas with good job opportunities. Nothing wrong with debt/loans as an investment, that is what college is after all, but if you can't pay (including in the expected future) your current debt then adding more is just a disaster waiting to happen. If worst come to worst you can move in to someone else's place for a while if you're renting but you can't do that with a house.

Re:Can you feel it?

[AnyoneEB]

Go back and read the history of the Bill of Rights. There was a huge controversy for exactly the reasons you state: why bother listing obvious rights unless it means the people do not have the others. See Arguments against the Bill of Rights on Wikipedia.

Re:Can you feel it?

[DM9290]

"You are being just as bad as the apathetic by taking on a cut and run mentality. I'm sure the founders of this country would hate you even more for being aware of the problems and not trying to get them solved. It's one thing to be ignorant of issues and quite another to know the issues and turn away."

How dare consumers act self interested in a free market society that rebelled against its lawful Monarch! What ever happened to brand loyalty? This kind of conduct is utterly disgraceful. The founding fathers would never condone turning your back on your masters and striking out on your own.

The obligation to be loyal to your sovereign is right there in the declaration of independence! oh.. wait.. oops.

Re:Can you feel it?

[cayenne8]

"What freedoms are lost? I've scoured the Constitution and Right to Anonymity is not listed there."

Remember, the Constitutions is NOT there to enumerate the rights of the citizens, it is there really to spell out the LIMITED powers that the govt. has over the states and citizens. The bill of rights and such do enumerate some of them, but, there is a clause in there saying basically the citizens naturally have ALL rights granted to them by God, and they have them naturally, unless against laws by the states, etc.

At this point, I know of no laws specifically against anonymity, so, therefore you DO have that right. I hope we can keep it that way, anonymity has a lot to do with keeping speech free. Speaking out against those in power and being known can make you a target for them, and that often keeps the little man from speaking against those in power.

Re:Can you feel it?

[cduffy]

One can also get a roommate in a house one owns; that approach isn't specific to renting. (Indeed, my brother-in-law lives with us and handles some of the household bills). I also agree that being able to temporarily live rent-free with friends and the like is useful.

The difference in payoff between owning and renting very much depends on the local economics, and I'm not about to claim that owning a home is the right thing to do in all circumstances. On the other hand, it can in many cases be a very beneficial -- as it is in the community where I live; rents here are nearly indistinguishable from mortgage payments, making the equity stored 100% win. (Well, mostly; there are hidden costs involved -- maintenance, insurance deductibles and the like -- but they're manageable).

Certainly, getting into more debt when over your head is a recipe for disaster -- but having debt (particularly asset-backed, fixed-term debt) isn't necessarily a sign of being over one's head; it can simply be an indication of willingness to take calculated risks for calculated (and oft-times significant) returns.

Re:Can you feel it?

[cayenne8]

"If we do have the right to anonymity, then I need to go rip my name off my mail box and my license plate off my car! If the fourth amendment means that I can post speech in a public forum anonymously, then my name should not be in the county records as the owner of my address (take that property tax man!!). My marriage license should read "the bearer of this document is married to the other bearer of this document...". I should be able to buy a gun without telling people who I am!"

I'm not quite sure here. First, the state has decided that driving on public roads is a privlige, and therefore has made specific laws that require you to be licensed and have plates, taxes, etc to use public roadways. Before these laws, you indeed had the right to not have a plate on the car, nothing to identify you at all. See? This was a case of the states making a specific law....as stated by the constitution. Think of it this way...it wasn't that long ago, in the US, that it was perfectly legal for you to grow and smoke pot....or do cocaine, or even opiates. It was a right you had, till specific laws were passed against it. See how this goes, you DO have the right unless the state puts laws in place against it.

And by the way, not sure where you're from, but, I've lived in plenty of states where it was perfectly legal for me to buy a gun from a private individual, with cash and no record whatsoever of the transaction. No need to register or anything. So, it depends on what state you live in....

Re:Can you feel it?

[ArcherB]

Great! The guy that says "fuck you, the Constitution says, 'reserved to the states'" is modded insightful. I point out that this is a local issue, not federal, so it falls under "reserved to the states" I get modded "troll".

Yeah, the mods are fair.

Re:Can you feel it?

[ral8158]

I think the GP's point was that you have the option to get a well paying job and be able to pay that much. You do decide what you're majoring in, you know.

But are you willing to work hard to go towards law or health or another difficult field? If the answer is 'no', then, well, deal with yourself.

Re:Can you feel it?

[Caseyscrib]

Follow the money.

Check out this site: http://maplight.org/

Video tour: http://maplight.org/video/2/FedTourMay1662007.html

Re:Can you feel it?

[jp10558]

I have replied to this elsewhere, but it's clearer here. I think (and others seem to agree) you have this exactly backwards:
Since there is no right to anonymity in this case, there is nothing to prevent a state or local government from seeking this poster's ID. This power is not forbidden to the United States by the Constitution.
The power is not granted to the United States by the Constitution, hence the United States does not have this power. The constitution is not about enumerating rights. In the 9th amendment as quoted, it specifically states it is not an enumeration of rights, the entire constitution prior to the ammendments is about enumerating Government Powers. It's not about what's forbidden to the United States, but what is granted. And this power is not granted.

Re:Can you feel it?

[jp10558]

I don't think it's practical to ban the corporations, so we need a system which levels the playing field for the common man.

I'm not sure what you mean here - are you saying, like your earlier point, that short of a violent revolution we couldn't ban the corporations from politics, or that for some philosophical reason not pointed out you think we need them involved?

Personally, I think it would be simple, stop the legal fiction that corporations are people. Contracts can still be between groups of people. However, the idea of shielded responsibility seems to be one of the big enablers of corporate malfesiance. Someone needs to be responsible, legally responsible. Then I think we'd see things reigned in a little better. Of course, it might well break mutual funds and the like if you could be sued for financially supporting a corrupt or damaging corporation.

Re:Can you feel it?

[jp10558]

I wonder if that isn't the point? I don't think it's that great advice to go looking for the best paying job out of college for several reasons.

1) You're going to presumably be doing this for awhile if you don't want it to just be a waste of money. Do you want to be doing something you hate for most of your life?

2) The hot jobs tend to change suddenly. They may change while you're getting the degree. So you've again wasted the money.

I've seen people doing a job they hate just for the money. It's not very pretty - they get sick more often, they are always unhappy at home and work, they have no energy after work. If the market shifts, they may end up slaves to that job as they'd lose lots of salary to change positions.

On the other hand, I'm not saying that you should complain if you have massive college debt in something that lets you get a job at McDonalds ... If the position you're targetting pays $25k a year, you're going to have to be able to live on that.

However, not everyone can get a position that pays $80k a year either. Think about it, as others have said, if everyone aimed for that "intelligent career" the pay will plumment - see what happened with IT. It was advertised exactly like you are saying before and up to the dotbomb...

Re:Can you feel it?

[Harmonious Botch]

...the 14th Amendment was the first one to cause the Bill of Rights to apply to the states in addition to the central government, something that was not intended by the founders... Sorry, but that is not true. It was intended, just not implemented very well. The states just did not acknowledge limitations to their power until forced to in the 1950s and 60s.

In his arguments for passage of the bill of rights, James Madison said:

I wish also, in revising the constitution, we may throw into that section, which interdict the abuse of certain powers in the State Legislatures, some other provisions of equal, if not greater importance than those already made. The words, "No State shall pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law," &c. were wise and proper restrictions in the constitution. I think there is more danger of those powers being abused by the State Governments than by the Government of the United States. The same may be said of other powers which they possess, if not controlled by the general principle, that laws are unconstitutional which infringe the rights of the community. I should therefore wish to extend this interdiction, and add, as I have stated in the 5th resolution, that no State shall violate the equal right of conscience, freedom of the press, or trial by jury in criminal cases; because it is proper that every Government should be disarmed of powers which trench upon those particular rights. I know, in some of the State constitutions, the power of the Government is controlled by such a declaration; but others are not. I cannot see any reason against obtaining even a double security on those points; and nothing can give a more sincere proof of the attachment of those who opposed this constitution to these great and important rights, than to see them join in obtaining the security I have now proposed; because it must be admitted, on all hands, that the State Governments are as liable to attack the invaluable privileges as the General Government is, and therefore ought to be as cautiously guarded against.

Re:Can you feel it?

[PrescriptionWarning]

Unfortunately that comparison doesn't mean much since the English gov't wasn't a democracy at the time :P

Re:Can you feel it?

[Grimbleton]

Only as a last resort...

Re:Can you feel it?

[jbengt]

You are way off base with your examples.
You do have a right to remain anonymous in your exercise of free speech.
Without that right of anonymity, "free" speech would be not that free.
(read the 9th and 10th amendments for the founders opinions on rights)
This has nothing to do with paying real estate taxes, getting mail delivered, or getting a driver's license. This has to do with the ability to criticize the powers that be, especially the government, without fear of punishment.

Re:Can you feel it?

[russotto]

What is really amazing is how much you can do to them before they can put you in prison. Here in the US - despite the current trend toward tyranny - you can do a lot that would get you imprisioned or even executed in many other countries.

Which says more about other countries than it does about the US. If you're going to use North Korea or some Islamic dictatorship as your benchmark, even the old Soviet Russia might start looking relatively free.

Re:Can you feel it?

[russotto]

Then why do we even have the Bill of Rights? The Bill of Rights is full of "Congress shall make no law...", why bother? Why not a "Bill of Government Rights" full of "Congress shall..." and "Congress may..."

That's what Article I of the Constitution is for.

BTW, using the enumeration of rights under Bill of Rights to disparage unenumerated rights is specifically forbidden by the Ninth Amendment.

Re:Can you feel it?

[russotto]

The thing with violence and freedom is when you stop threatening violence, you start losing freedom.
American Revolution 2 by 2012. Bigger, badder, and 40% more extreme than the original.

The agents-provocateur are out in force tonight...

Re:Can you feel it?

[Torodung]

I'm not sure what you mean here - are you saying, like your earlier point, that short of a violent revolution we couldn't ban the corporations from politics, or that for some philosophical reason not pointed out you think we need them involved? Corporations peddle influence through dollars. There's no way to keep the dollars out without shutting down or redefining the basis of our economy, and all the extant options go from bad to worse, IMHO. McCain/Feingold, for instance, merely diverted the flow of dollars, which ran around the blockage and back into political coffers in a matter of years.

Personally, I think it would be simple, stop the legal fiction that corporations are people. You hit the nail on the head. Unfortunately, that mistake was made over a century ago and is now firmly embedded in precedent. Short of violent revolution, there's no way to erase the mistake. It may yet result in violent revolution, but probably not in our lifetimes. It's a bad precedent that needs to be amended.

But unless you or I can figure out a pithy summary that could inflame the citizenry to demand a reversal of this subtle point of law, and it is so subtle that many people miss it (if they even care), there's no way to gain traction. Maybe you or I will run for office some day, but if we win, it is hard to amend a broken system when you are part of it.

The only other option would be to create a public foundation called, for illustration, "People First" demanding that the status quo be that individuals' rights always be greater than entity rights. Populism is currently being dismantled, if you haven't noticed.

Good luck finding anyone to fund such an organization, because anyone with money enough is part of the status quo. It doesn't look good. There are four or five consecutive "catch 22's" in effectively reversing such an ingrained precedent.

--
Toro

Re:Can you feel it?

[Torodung]

Awesome. It's about time data mining served the people.

--
Toro

Re:Can you feel it?

[slashqwerty]

"Whatever you do will be insignificant, but it is gravely important that you do it." - Ghandi

That is a fantastic quote, but the only place it can be found on the web is Slashdot which makes me think Ghandi never said it.

Re:Can you feel it?

[scubamage]

My apologies, I was pulling it from memory and I screwed up the adverb. The actual quote is: "Whatever you do will be insignificant, but it is very important that you do it." I think your googleventures will be much easier :)

Re:Can you feel it?

[slashqwerty]

Yes, that is much better. Thanks!

Re:Can you feel it?

[Belial6]

And neither is the US. On paper we are a Republic, and in practice, we are something else yet. Definitely not a democracy.

Re:Can you feel it?

[ArcherB]

The power is not granted to the United States by the Constitution, hence the United States does not have this power.

The Constitution does not give the United States (and therefor, not the states) the power to put up red lights, stop signs, street lights or airports, and yet they are there. Should we start taking them all down as they are inherently Unconstitutional?

Actually, I believe this was challenged all the time when someone decided not to pay their taxes because the IRS is not in the Constitution. They always seem to lose.

Re:Can you feel it?

[WilyCoder]

Did the founding fathers 'cut and run' from England?

Re:Can you feel it?

[overunderunderdone]

As someone once said "Th constitution isn't perfect... but it's better than what we have now". Sadly the actual constitution of our government (how it's organized and works) bears only a passing resemblance to the written one. Pretty much the entire alphabet soup of federal agencies, and 9/10ths of the laws and federal programs are not authorized in the constitution (see Article 1, section 8. read in light of the 10th amendment) But that's the written constitution and it's just so much paper at this point. Good for praising in the abstract and making us feel good about ourselves but God forbid anyone should apply that text of it to the actual workings of government.

Of course, if we WERE adhering to the written constitution this is all moot since this is not a federal but a STATE case... The 10th amendment cuts both ways, unless the state government is expressly forbidden to do so, it's free to legislate as it pleases in those areas the federal government isn't authorized to.

Re:Can you feel it?

[wallywam1]

Woah...brewer AND patriot. This Samuel Adams guy just might be onto something.

Post Anonymously

[Anonymous Coward]

I submit that we should all Post Anonymously to this thread in support.

Re:Post Anonymously

[noidentity]

I submit that we should do something more than symbolic if we really care about the issue.

Re:Post Anonymously

[Quixote]

You should read my journal entry.
Anonymity on Slashdot is a sham unless you've blocked all cookies from Slashdot and aren't logged in.

This one matters...

[CodeShark]

To the extent that "all government is local", this is a very important case, because while Uncle Sam may be great big and far away, if you are in a small city or town and are critical and can be outed via a simple subpoena, then what's to stop the local city or town government from instructing the local chief of police to make sure you get more than your fair share of traffic tickets, building inspectors from condemning your home, power co. operators from playing with the juice, in short any or all other governmental or quasi-governmental person who stands to benefit from a critic being silenced from engaging in a pattern of harassment, deception, etc.?

That said, with both the EFF and Google being against the subpoena, I don't really think that this stands a snowflake's chance in hell of surviving the legal challenges. And if the Superior Court judge gets it wrong, I would still see this going all the way to SCOTUS for resolution before the blogger would be outed.

Re:This one matters...

[Anonymous Coward]

That said, with both the EFF and Google being against the subpoena, I don't really think that this stands a snowflake's chance in hell of surviving the legal challenges.

The scary part about this is that two NGOs are the advocates for privacy and citizen rights in this case. It's very, very sad when we trust a private corporation more than we trust our local goverment.

Neuromancer, we'll see you soon.

Re:This one matters...

[Reality Master 101]

It's very, very sad when we trust a private corporation more than we trust our local goverment.

You got that exactly backwards... it's very, very sad when people put trust in government -- ever. I'll take a private corporation that I can either do or don't do business with, over a government entity any day. You don't have any choice with the government.

Whistleblower laws?

[ookabooka]

Does NJ have whistle blower laws? And if so, do bloggers count or would one have to go to a "reputable" news place to have a legal shield? I'm not even sure if it would apply though; you have to be somehow involved in the thing you are critiquing to be considered a whistle blower.

That was dumb...

[Penguinisto]

While agree with the EFF's premise (in that someone shouldn't be forced into identifying him/herself just because they've been vocal about a public issue), I have to wonder... WTF would the township do with the info?

Sure, if the blogger turns out to be a public employee of said township, he/she would prolly be fired. Then again, the nanosecond after they did such a thing, esp. after outing him/her in such a public manner, would likely put themselves at substantial legal risk.

But the main point for the township being stupid by doing it is this: what was once a thing that could be scoffed at as 'some guy on the Internet who knows nothing about this'... now has credence, credibility, and a firm aura of truth; all of which has now been granted to him/her/it by the township's idiot legal team.

Personally, if Congress wants to do something useful (well...), they could work on something legislative-like that would prevent government-as-plaintiff in a civil suit from ever being allowed to out any anonymous posting, publication, or what-have-you.

Man - some people just can't grok the concept of not using every tool they have for a difficult problem, simply because they're all there and sitting in the toolbox.

/P

Re:That was dumb...

[Maxo-Texas]

You are probably breaking three or four laws right now and you do not even know it.

The township can make the guy's life hell-- can make his friend's lives hell so he loses his friends (assuming it is a guy).

Ben Franklin would have been outed very early in his career under this standard.

Re:That was dumb...

[QuantumRiff]

Then again, the nanosecond after they did such a thing, esp. after outing him/her in such a public manner, would likely put themselves at substantial legal risk.

But with lawyers involved, thats not how it works. They would ignore him for awhile, giving the coworkers better performance reviews (not bad for the employee, but better for the others) ensuring the others get promotions. They would slowly change the scope of work of the employee, to set them up to fail. They would also start doing LOTS of random audits of his department, writing him up for making a personal call, hitting their banks website, etc. So that they will have a paper trail in the employee's file showing they were bad. Other co-workers would file complaints about little things, which would get added to the pile, etc. Basically, they will drive the employee so low that they will hate it, and quit.

Re:That was dumb...

[timmarhy]

you miss the point. that is happening is that the councilors he is attacking online want to sue him personally for lible. it's not the council itself, as government departments aren't able to bring civil suits. hell if someone was attacking me very publicly online i'd probably sue them as well if it wasn't true.

example. what if someone on a local forum accused you of being a pedo and it got picked up in the local news? it could ruin your life, and the internet is NOT a platform to get up and ruin other peoples lives.

Re:That was dumb...

[Toonol]

The township can make the guy's life hell-- can make his friend's lives hell so he loses his friends (assuming it is a guy).

They can't do that to a woman? Am I reading you wrong?

Re:That was dumb...

[m2943]

ou miss the point. that is happening is that the councilors he is attacking online want to sue him personally for lible

No, that is not what is happening. If that were the case, the councilors would file a lawsuit for libel and then subpoena the blogger as part of the libel suit.

What they are actually doing is trying to unmask the blogger as part of a malpractice lawsuit by the town against a lawyer; blogging or libel have no bearing on that.

Re:That was dumb...

[Penguinisto]

you miss the point. that is happening is that the councilors he is attacking online want to sue him personally for lible. it's not the council itself, as government departments aren't able to bring civil suits. hell if someone was attacking me very publicly online i'd probably sue them as well if it wasn't true.

This would assume that 1) what the blogger was saying actually constitutes libel, and 2) the council member would have a very hard time, as a public figure, getting past the general rules and precedents set against public figures suing for libel.

example. what if someone on a local forum accused you of being a pedo and it got picked up in the local news? it could ruin your life, and the internet is NOT a platform to get up and ruin other peoples lives.

First off, I'm not a publicly elected figure, so I can happily sue whomever said such things for libel, and most likely their ISP/host/whomever would shut them down and retract said allegations immediately.

Second, if a blogger started leveling falsehoods in my direction and I were a public figure, the last thing I'd want to do is lend them any credence or credibility by trying to bull through a court order to expose the blogger. It would be easier to ignore them, which cuts off their air supply and hit rates all at once. If that doesn't work, you respond to media inquiries by saying that the blogger is an outright liar, and challenge said blogger to prove the accusations to any respected media source. After that, it can be safely ignored... either the blogger shuts up, or he/she loses any and all credibility among the media (either by not responding w/ evidence/proof, or by having such "evidence" or "proof" proven false through media investigation).

A smart politician who knows he/she is in the clear against such allegations, knows that it's easier and politically safer to have an anonymous opponent shoved into Tin Foil Territory (in the public's collective judgement) than anywhere else. Otherwise, you end up wasting resources to fix a problem that in ordinary circumstance would simply die off quickly by itself... and as a Murphy Bonus, you'd end up drawing attention to it than it would have otherwise warranted.

Now - that said, if you're a public figure with something to hide, and someone keeps exposing those somethings, then you would still be smart to take the same route as much as possible, until/unless the evidence starts piling up and can be confirmed. Even in such cases, suing for libel or outing the blogger isn't really going to get you anything good - you're still a public figure and cannot credibly sue for libel in most cases, and your attempts are automatically going to be read as something that the public is going to pay attention to. After all, if you're so eager to shut someone up, then there must be something to what that someone is saying, no?

/P

Re:That was dumb...

[Penguinisto]

The township can make the guy's life hell-- can make his friend's lives hell so he loses his friends (assuming it is a guy).

I don't doubt that for a second. OTOH, this assumes a lot - that the guy/girl actually lives within reach of the township (anywhere along the Eastern Seaboard? Odds are fairly decent that the blogger may live in the town next door or somesuch). It also assumes that the blogger is actually the source, and not just typing it all on behalf of the source.

Seems to be a whole lot of work that may net them little-to-no gain, politically or otherwise. I mean, SCO went balls-out to try and get PJ (of Groklaw)'s personal info, but they at least stated clearly that they thought she was some sort of s00p4r-s3kr4t IBM operative or front (and yes, they would've tried to make her life Hell in retaliation, I have zero doubts about that... but at least they had a somewhat plausible purpose -- which in turn was shot down, so I'm not sure if the NJ case will fare any better).

/P

Re:That was dumb...

[Antique Geekmeister]

There are numerous actions the township could take. Police harassment is always good in a corrupt town: cutting off utilities, failing to plow the poster's street, refusing to grant building permits to the builder or their family, "losing" tax records, or if the person is an "insider" with personal knowledge of such corruption, firing them on any convenient pretext while making sure they get bad references. It's unfortunately common to do this to irritating whistleblowers in academia, industry, and politics. But you need to have the person's identity to aim your efforts properly.

For examples of how badly this can go, take a look at SCO's repeated fraudulent claims and harassmentn against Pamela Jones. And for how a fraudulent claim can be used to get a warrant and break open the shield of anonymity, take a good look at how anon.penet.fi was shut down by its owner after a fraudulent claim of cracking was made, through Interpol, to get a warrant against one of its users.

Re:That was dumb...

[Maxo-Texas]

Lol- they could equally make a gal's life hell too.

I just realized I was presuming it was a guy and it could be a feisty girl as well.

Who do they think they are?

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

They should realize they are some small city government in New Jersey. They seem to think they are China. Only to China, Google and Yahoo will dutifully genuflect and bend over. Not to New Jersey.

Re:Who do they think they are?

[sabt-pestnu]

"Not genuflecting" in this case would have meant that Google would have moved to quash, not leave it up to the EFF.

Google is a US corporation; simply ignoring a court order, regardless of the plaintiff, would hurt more than it is worth to them. They didn't object, ergo, they were going to roll over...

But I expect that you said all that in jest, and it went whizzing over the heads of the folks who modded you "interesting" and "Flamebait"... :)

Simpsons reference

[d0hboy]

The article summary made me think of a related Simpsons episode in which Homer hid behind a "Mister X" moniker and dug up dirt on everybody through a website.

Re:Simpsons reference

[Culture20]

And you remember what happened to Mr. X, right? He got to live on a wonderful island paradise for the rest of his life.

Re:Simpsons reference

[WK2]

Yep. And the frequent injections weren't so bad after they got used to them.

invasive and non-invasive postings

[Grampaw Willie]

Blogging, and writing web pages are non-invasive: I am not going to receive the material unless I search for it and select it. Non-invasive postings are like a newspaper in that respect. If I don't like your newspaper I don't subscribe and after that if you continue to drop it off on me that is littering. anonymous non-invasive postings are fine eMails, phone calls, FAXs, and executable codes are INVASIVE. If you bust through my door without identifying yourself and stating your business I like to put a boot in the seat of your pants. we have already won on FAXs and on Caller-ID. Next will be eMails and executable codes. NO SIGNATURE? NO EXECUTE.

Re:invasive and non-invasive postings

[the_brobdingnagian]

I see your point on the fax, telephone and email, but why executables? Executables are not a way to contact people, they are data and code. I'm happy with the fact that my executables don't have to be signed.

Re:invasive and non-invasive postings

[Temujin_12]

we have already won on FAXs and on Caller-ID. Next will be eMails and executable codes. NO SIGNATURE? NO EXECUTE.

Please tell me you are not referring to the concept commonly referred to as Trusted Computing, currently spearheaded by The Trusted Computing Group. For a list of members go here.

It's terribly ironic that for an article focusing on privacy rights you mention 'winning' and Trusted Computing in the same paragraph as Trusted Computing would enable companies/governments/organizations to systematically, universally, and without user interaction, perform such tasks as:

• Digital rights management
• Prevent users from being able to to modify software
• Remove control over or access to data from users
• Strip away anonymity
• Leave backdoors into computer systems
• Remote 'bricking' of computer
• Forced upgrade/downgrade of system

Sources: (Trusted Computing, Can You Trust Your Computer, Trusted Computing FAQ, Trusted Computing: Promise and Risk)

What makes Trusted Computing so dangerous is that this is enforced at the hardware layer (usually in the CPU). This isn't a software implementation that will inevitably be hacked within a short period of time. This is the hardware of your own computer obeying 3rd party instructions before it obeys your instructions. Granted this requires the hardware is in your computer. But if widespread enough, people not running on hardware that is "Trusted" could be isolated and any communication from it to a "Trusted" system blocked. People would effectively be forced to "upgrade" to the "Trusted" platform in order to interact with the rest of the industry/country/world/etc (forgive the use of quotes here, but in Trust Computing words like upgrade, trust, and threat are often misleading).

BTW, if you weren't referring to the concept of Trusted Computing, then please just ignore my rant. Hopefully, though, someone finds some of this information enlightening and/or checks out some of those sources.

Re:invasive and non-invasive postings

[Grampaw Willie]

Executables are not a way to contact people

why on earth would you say that?

as a means of contact an executable programs capability offers many many options to its author

you may be happy that you don't have to sign your executables and maybe you aren't writing anything malicious. but rest assured we do have people who are writing malicious code and so we will have to adopt some process to bring that under control

while we certainly won't be able to require anyone to sign their code we can REJECT and REFUSE any code that has not been signed and this is where we are going with this change.

Par for the course

[Billosaur]

Welcome to the Garden State. Never let it be said local officials were ever too happy about having their judgment questioned. When it comes to mayors, school boards, and township committees, N.J. is a hotbed for corruption, and whenever someone calls someone else out, there's always some under-handed move by local government to quash the opposition. The sad part is, despite his campaign promises, out illustrious governor hasn't done a damned thing about political corruption on any level in New Jersey.

I frankly don't think this subpoena has a chance in hell of surviving, but I do feel it's going to have to go pretty far up the chain before it gets choked off. NJ just has the kind of effect.

Re:Par for the course

[Glass Lizard]

The governor of New Jersey? He's probably too busy speeding down the highway at 90 mph without his seatbelt on so he can get to meetings and make sure that nobody's feelings are hurt by washed-up radio personalities. There's no way he has enough time to deal with political corruption!

Freedom of Spee... ah Responsibility

[rueger]

"Freedom of Speech" has never meant "Freedom for Responsibility." The right to speak your mind does not mean that you cannot be held accountable for your statements.

It is important that anyone speaking out, or even breaking the law, understand that there are possible consequences, and assess whether on the balance they still wish to move ahead. Obviously datruthsquad has a rather sketchy understanding of the law, and is now being threatened for his actions.

Rather than trying to find some cloak of invisibility he should be preparing his defence with his lawyer.

Assuming that he can actually defend his statements.

The Constitution describes GOVERNMENT's power.

[khasim]

What freedoms are lost? I've scoured the Constitution and Right to Anonymity is not listed there.

Here's a free clue.

The Constitution is not about listing the "Freedoms" a citizen has.

The People have ALL the Freedoms. Inherently.

The Constitution defines under what conditions the government can infringe upon those Freedoms.

You have it 180 degrees BACKWARDS.

Re:The Constitution describes GOVERNMENT's power.

[tqft]

You might find this interesting

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/25/nyregion/25magna.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
Magna Carta for sale

Re:The Constitution describes GOVERNMENT's power.

[EngMedic]

Marbury v. Madison

[The constitution] organizes the government, and assigns to different departments their respective powers. It may either stop here; or establish certain limits not to be transcended by those departments.

The government of the United States is of the latter description. The powers of the legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken or forgotten, the constitution is written. To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing; if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained?

Re:The Constitution describes GOVERNMENT's power.

[Jason Levine]

The Bill of Rights was a compromise between two camps of founding fathers. The Federalists thought that the Constitution as-is protected everyone's rights. The Anti-Federalists thought that these rights needed to be spelled out more lest government decide to take away whatever wasn't spelled out in the Constitution. The compromise was to make the first ten amendments to the Constitution the "Bill of Rights." While a good compromise, the Anti-Federalists have been proven right as the government tries to take away rights because "they're not in the Constitution" (and as people accept that as a valid reason for taking away a right).

Re:The Constitution describes GOVERNMENT's power.

[m2943]

Tell me then, why do we have the Bill or Rights?

Because some people wanted to make extra certain that some specific rights are explicitly enumerated. Other people were of the opinion that this wasn't necessary and would just muddy the waters (as it did with you). As a compromise, they added the Bill of Rights, but added these disclaimers at the end:

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Clear enough?

Re:The Constitution describes GOVERNMENT's power.

[ArcherB]

Clear enough?

Oh, I got it. That's why I don't understand what the Bill of Rights has to do with this case. No one has been able to tell me how anonymity is a right. If anything, Amendment X, The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people allows a local government to seek the ID of this person, since seeking someone's ID is not prohibited, then it is reserved to the states (or in this case, a local government).

Re:The Constitution describes GOVERNMENT's power.

[vsync64]

Tell me then, why do we have the Bill or Rights? If nothing in the Constitution says that the government can, say, search my house, why bother specifically saying that the government can NOT search my house? If I have free speech, Inherently, then why is it in the Bill of Rights? What's the point?

Because they figured that without explicit constraints the government would infringe rights as soon as it had the chance. (Even with them, sadly! USA PATRIOT)

Basically it's an extra check and balance that must be violated before armed revolution is the only option left to restore inalienable rights. It at least slows tyranny down.

Here's some history on the BoR: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights#Arguments_against_the_Bill_of_Rights

Hamilton feared explicitly that people like you would come along.

I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?

Re:The Constitution describes GOVERNMENT's power.

[Harmonious Botch]

Tell me then, why do we have the Bill or Rights? If nothing in the Constitution says that the government can, say, search my house, why bother specifically saying that the government can NOT search my house? If I have free speech, Inherently, then why is it in the Bill of Rights? What's the point? There are 2 points to doing so:
1) It was insurance. The framers knew that governments would tend to expand past the powers enumerated in the constitution, so they enumerated many of the things that it could not do. ( Patrick Henry was probably the most vocal of these. He was one of the primary Anti-federalists against the constitution. He thought that it made a government that could grow too powerful. So after he lost on the adoption of the constitution vote, he then tried to limit the government's power with amendments to it. )

2) It was an attempt to limit the state governments as much as the federal. At the time, states were much stronger than they are now. As Madison said:

I wish also, in revising the constitution, we may throw into that section, which interdict the abuse of certain powers in the State Legislatures, some other provisions of equal, if not greater importance than those already made. The words, "No State shall pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law," &c. were wise and proper restrictions in the constitution. I think there is more danger of those powers being abused by the State Governments than by the Government of the United States. The same may be said of other powers which they possess, if not controlled by the general principle, that laws are unconstitutional which infringe the rights of the community. I should therefore wish to extend this interdiction, and add, as I have stated in the 5th resolution, that no State shall violate the equal right of conscience, freedom of the press, or trial by jury in criminal cases; because it is proper that every Government should be disarmed of powers which trench upon those particular rights. I know, in some of the State constitutions, the power of the Government is controlled by such a declaration; but others are not. I cannot see any reason against obtaining even a double security on those points; and nothing can give a more sincere proof of the attachment of those who opposed this constitution to these great and important rights, than to see them join in obtaining the security I have now proposed; because it must be admitted, on all hands, that the State Governments are as liable to attack the invaluable privileges as the General Government is, and therefore ought to be as cautiously guarded against.

Re:The Constitution describes GOVERNMENT's power.

[jdjbuffalo]

GP is right. In a natural state you have all the rights in the world (upto and including murdering other people). This of course is anarchy and not something desirable in a society. So societies have formed around the idea that your freedoms have to be *reasonably limited*. This is done by giving power to a central authority that we call a government. The Constitution gives a broad (and sometimes specific) outline of what powers each branch of the government has and what limits those branches can infringe on our natural rights.

*reasonably limited: what exactly this means is what we have been fighting over since the first government was installed and will be until the end of time.

Re:The Constitution describes GOVERNMENT's power.

[PinkyDead]

In exactly the same way that when pay my taxes, it's actually me giving my money to the government - not them taking their money from me.

It just doesn't feel that way, though, does it?

Re:The Constitution describes GOVERNMENT's power.

[Anonymous Coward]

then it is reserved to the states (or in this case, a local government).

Guess what, New Jersey has a Constitution too. Looks like New Jersey citizens had something to say about what powers should be reserved to the state and which should be reserved to the people!

Let's see what they said about it...
-Every person may freely speak, write and publish his sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that right. ... In all prosecutions or indictments for libel, the truth may be given in evidence to the jury; and if it shall appear to the jury that the matter charged as libelous is true, and was published with good motives and for justifiable ends, the party shall be acquitted; and the jury shall have the right to determine the law and the fact.
-No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense, unless on the presentment or indictment of a grand jury
-The people have the right freely to assemble together, to consult for the common good, to make known their opinions to their representatives, and to petition for redress of grievances.
-The Governor may cause an investigation to be made of the conduct in office of any officer or employee who receives his compensation from the State of New Jersey, except a member, officer or employee of the Legislature or an officer elected by the Senate and General Assembly in joint meeting, or a judicial officer.

I'm unable to find anything in there giving the state of NJ the right to run about unmasking people without cause or due process. If they think daTruthSquad's stuff is libelous, then they can press charges and have a warrant issued.

Re:The Constitution describes GOVERNMENT's power.

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

The Supreme Court agrees. Some cases where they've blocked legal interference with anonymous speech are McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm'n, 514 U.S. 334 (1995) and Talley v. California, 362 U.S. 60 (1960).

Re:The Constitution describes GOVERNMENT's power.

[jp10558]

I think the argument is that this right is reserved to the people unless the state has passed a law taking said power, that is the power to make someone non-anonymous. Generally I think many people read the constitution as a permissive document, that is, what it states is what it allows. That part of the document, Amendment X that you quote, if read similarily would (to me) seem to imply the default power rests with the people.

So anything not defined in the constitution as a government power is denied the government, unless a law is passed within the constraints of the constitution taking power for the government, it does not have that power.

All of the above may be singularily unclear, but these arguments always come down to whether people are looking at the constitution and body of law as a whitelist or a blacklist... The arguemnt of the GPP is the body of law is a whitelist, government power is default deny.

I personally would prefer that, and think that's what the founders were shooting for, but there are lots of room for argument.

Re:The Constitution describes GOVERNMENT's power.

[m2943]

allows a local government to seek the ID of this person, since seeking someone's ID is not prohibited, then it is reserved to the states (or in this case, a local government

That's incorrect. State legislatures have powers, but only subject to state constitutions. Local and state governments have powers, but only as given to them by state legislatures. The NJ state constitution parallels the US Constitution in enumerating specific powers for state government and leaving the rest to the people.

Also, note that the local government isn't trying to unmask the blogger; they realize they don't have that power. They're just on a legal fishing expedition as part of another lawsuit.

Re:The Constitution describes GOVERNMENT's power.

[remedios]

Additionally, it's right there in the First Amendment. The Supreme Court has said that the Constitution includes a right to anonymity in the First Amendment. The right to free speech doesn't come with an asterisk saying "only if you tell us who you are." Inherent in the right to speech is to do so anonymously. As Justice Thomas said, even though there's no explicit discussion of anonymity in speech, the fact that many of the Federalist Papers were anonymous proves by example that the founders valued it and meant it to be included. That is not to say there can't be exceptions to this right; obviously there are. But they are exactly that - exceptions.

Does Anonymity create more or less truth?

[olddotter]

Ok maybe this is an tangential question to the subject. But I'm wondering does the ability to post anonymously create more truthful revelation because people are not afraid of retribution? Or does it create more bogus BS because people know they can't be held accountable?

Re:Does Anonymity create more or less truth?

[King_TJ]

Some of each.... Does it really matter? Anonymity is a concept some people have chosen to employ LONG before the Internet came along. Look at all the book authors who chose to write under a "pen name", for example.

Like anything, it's up to the *reader* to make his/her own judgment calls about the validity of the information he/she reads. Sometimes, people who sign their name to a work are still just producing B.S. (Look at the best-selling "Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus" books. The author's PhD was from a diploma mill in California.)

Re:Does Anonymity create more or less truth?

[mabhatter654]

On the internet most anonymous stuff is considered noise unless it has very good references. How much credit would you put on a picture of a public official with marker colored mustaches on it in a public bathroom? That level of public pamphleteering is so over used to be pointless... much of the internet is the same way.

Look at Paula Jones of GrokLaw. She? is relatively anonymous so why should we credit her? But we do credit her because she produces official certified documents that are available publicly, if you know where to look. We can independently verify her claims, and then her opinion has value even if we don't know who she is. This is the same as Ben Franklin's early writings in secret, under a pen name as well as several others at the time of the American Revolution.

My opinion is that an anonymous site like this is either childish noise, or it's accurate. If public officials are after it for "noise" they could simply request it to be removed and show Google facts that support their position. The need to "out" this poster means somebody is hitting the mark, and being taken seriously.. In that respect they should answer the requests to the satisfaction of the public and this guy will go back to being noise. If the person does have real dirt, then they would be a protected whistleblower.

Given the situation, where a public body bought "poisoned" land, and it appears the lawyer did not do due diligence, there is a good deal of criticism in order as Federal and State laws don't protect the local government from responsibility.. they could be sued for millions tomorrow by the EPA even though they just bought the land! It's been 20 years of these environmental laws and a lawyer not presenting this evidence is either extremely negligent or in on the deal with somebody that owns the property perhaps on the council... there's not a lot of middle ground for "simple error" here.

Bearing on the case?

[Xchagger]

According to the article, they are attempting to discover the bloggers identity not to call them out or persecute them, but to make sure it isn't the defendant in the case.

The township subpoenaed Google for "daTruthSquad's" identity -- as well as for any emails, blog drafts, and other information Google has about the blogger -- claiming that the defendant in the case is actually writing the posts. The defendant, however, has already sworn under penalty of perjury that he is not "daTruthSquad." Why this was left out of the article summary, I am not sure. While I don't personally think that giving away the person's identity is right, I do think the prosecutors have the right to know whether or not the defendant is posting these blogs to cause a big ruckos and to support their cause. Especially since the defendant has already testified it is not them. If they lied, they are guilty of purjury. If google could just verify that the blogger is not infact the defendant, I think that would be fair enough.

Re:Bearing on the case?

[FranTaylor]

None of what you say should matter in the slightest bit. He was asked this question and had to answer truthfully under oath. By your argument, all you have to do is ask the question and they lose their right to be anonymous, which is unconstitutional.

Re:Bearing on the case?

[pla]

I do think the prosecutors have the right to know whether or not the defendant is posting these blogs to cause a big ruckos and to support their cause.

Google can answer that with a simple "yes" or "no".

Re:Bearing on the case?

[Xchagger]

If you are involved in the case, yes, you should have to divulge your identity. If the blogger is not involved in the case, their anonymity should be safe. Hence why I said, at best, Google should have to divulge whether or not it is the defendant. If it is, they are guilty of perjury, if not, then the person remains anonymous. I'm sure legally it can't work that way. The law system has a tendancy to be all or nothing. Just saying that I believe the prosecuters have a right to know whether or not it is the defendant making the blogs. He said no under oath, that doesn't mean he wasn't lying. I believe they have a right to verify the truth when the information is available. I do not believe they should be privy to any information other than whether or not he was lying. If the law states they need all the information, not just the pertinent information, then no, they shouldn't have it. I do not know the law though.

Not sure how to tie this into Facebook's

[davidsyes]

founder, but:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/03/zuckerberg_files/

From the URL:

"Facebook founder loses court battle to keep personal data offline
Poked by his own petard... bitch"

and:

"Mark Zuckerberg has been given a taste of his own medicine: his personal information is being plastered all over the web forever.

The Facebook boss has failed in a court bid to gag a magazine that published data including drunken extracts from his college diary and his social security number.

Federal judge Douglas Woodlock told the 23-year-old's lawyers on Friday that the independent Harvard alumni magazine 02138 had the right to release the documents, which were part of another court case.

02138's investigation centred on the dispute between Zuckerberg and the operators of ConnectU, another Harvard-founded social network. It's alleged that in the early days of Facebook, "the new Bill Gates" nicked ideas and source code from brothers Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss, who had asked him to work on their project."

I wonder what kind of slander and libel and smearing might come about if this other case turns out to have basis in fact, and what this might do to msoft's investment in Facebook. I bet Google is GLAD it did not get to be attached, now...

Prior restraint and pamphleteering

[goombah99]

But if you are slanderous or libelous, you should be held accountable. I agree.
The closest analog here I think is the issue of anonymous Pamphleteering. As I recall the common law is that you can do so anonymously. But there's also no right to that anonymity. That is, the Government or whom ever is not prevented from piercing your anonymity if they can.

Additionally there's the common law of prior restraint. With few exceptions, the government cannot act to prevent you from saying something that would be illegal or uncivil for you to say.

Thus the desire to prevent you from speaking something can't be ground for the government to require non-anonymous speech.

On the other hand the soapboxes we use to connect to the web are all owned by entitites. Those entitities can set up their own rules and policies. And one of those could be non anaoymous free speech.

I suppose other countries--not the USA-- may have different rules. Things may be different in china and stockholm.

Re:Prior restraint and pamphleteering

[Amouth]

that is a very good way to look at it.

somethign that has always bothered me about blogs and people not liking what is said on them and the blogers calling it free speach is this..

if i use my right to free speach - then i am talking.. i am standing next to you and talking.. you can choose not to listen to me but you will still hear it because i spoke it.

but if i write something and you read it.. that is diffrent.. the blog is out there for everyone to read.. it is like leaving a book on a park bench.. you chose to read it. there is some personal accountability taken apon the reader.

i have always had issue with anonymous web content being considered "free speach" - personaly i feel everyone should be accountable for what they say. but i think "Pamphleteering" is the best way i have have heard it clasiffied..

a very good way of looking at it, thank you

Re:Prior restraint and pamphleteering

[PitaBred]

And even if you hear me, you can ignore it. The only time free speech is a problem is if it interferes with someone else's right to free speech. You don't have a right to not be offended or not hear things you don't like. You have a right to make your viewpoint known, and that's it.

Re:Prior restraint and pamphleteering

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

The closest analog here I think is the issue of anonymous Pamphleteering. As I recall the common law is that you can do so anonymously. But there's also no right to that anonymity. That is, the Government or whom ever is not prevented from piercing your anonymity if they can.

That is pretty close, but there are a few fundamental differences between anonymous pamphleteering and internet publication. Pamphleteering rarely occurs across national boundaries, bringing in the laws of multiple jurisdictions. Secondly, and more importantly, the government has not established strict regulations as to who can distribute pamphlets, but they have restricted access to providing network access by regulating the wireless spectrum and by restricting who can lay lines in the public right of ways to each house. Further, the government has subsidized the creation of a few major networks, breaking free trade and making it uneconomical for anyone else to enter the market.

Basically, the US government has involved themselves so much in the telecom industry, it can no longer be considered a free market and what is done by those private companies has to be considered in constitutional terms as if the it was the government doing them, much as pamphleteering, via the US postal service 20 years ago was restricted in that the post office could not just tell anyone who asked where the pamphlets were mailed from and to.

Re:Prior restraint and pamphleteering

[Amouth]

maybe you should realize that it is a personal feeling of mine, and that it is how i stated it, before you try to insult me.

Re:Prior restraint and pamphleteering

[jedidiah]

>> Pamphleteering rarely occurs across national boundaries.

That's absurd.

The nature of a pamphlet is such that it is easily transmitted across national boundaries even in very primitive circumstances. Pamphlets are small enough that they are cheap enough to print and dispense wildly even in situations where books in general are too expensive to be bought by the average laborer/reader.

That quality of pamphleteering is why it has been used in popular movements. That quality of pamphleteering helped trigger both the American and French revolutions and probably countless others (like the Soviets).

Re:Prior restraint and pamphleteering

[BoberFett]

Well your personal feeling is wrong, and it's a good thing you and people like you had nothing to do with the founding of this country.

Re:Prior restraint and pamphleteering

[jbengt]

"But there's also no right to that anonymity."

Wrong.
When it comes to free speech, there is necessarily a right to anonymity.

And the Constitution of the USA includes both an explicit right to free speech, as well as other named and unamed natural rights:
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." (Amendment 9)

"particularly critical "

[MLCT]

How critical is the key fact that is missing. If he is saying the Township is not doing a good job and is criticising their actions in relation to this case then he is fine. If he is libelling individual, identifiable, people and/or breaking accepted laws in any other way then he should be held accountable.

If it is the former then his comments are no different to thousands of letters published in local newspapers all over the world every week criticising decisions and governance - a process that is well accepted to be *part* of the democratic system, and indeed a vital one. If it is the latter then the blogger has fallen into the now very well defined trap of thinking you are unidentifiable online, and thus can say or do whatever you like.

DON'T GET HYSTERICAL : Other Side of the Story

[tjstork]

EFF Twists Truth?

David Weeks, an attorney representing Manalapan, says the foundation is twisting a routine legal request in a local lawsuit into a First Amendment case.
"We're not asking to interfere with anyone's right to speak," Weeks said.
Instead, Manalapan's attorneys are simply asking Google to establish whether Moskovitz was telling the truth when he denied he was the blogger in court papers related to the land deal lawsuit.
"I don't know one way or the other if it's him," Weeks said. "It could be him."

So, some facts:

a) The guy getting sued is being sued because he didn't file EPA paperwork on a land deal. In NJ, that's pretty dumb, so he could be guilty of malpractice.
b) The guy getting sued is actually the former mayor of the same county that is suing him.
c) Yes, NJ is crooked.

However, with that said, if DaTruthSquad is the former mayor, and he is posting on about stuff, he could be violating various other things, compromising a sealed case, who knows, and therefor, the government -does- have an interest in knowing if it is him.

Note that the point is, Google isn't getting sued to see -who- DaTruthSquad is. Google is getting sued to reveal if the guy is the former mayor. Not to say that everyone is angelic, but, in all probability, DaTruthSquad is probably a crook himself.

As Bob Dylan wrote: "In Jersey everything's legal, as long as you don't get caught."

Re:DON'T GET HYSTERICAL : Other Side of the Story

[noidentity]

Note that the point is, Google isn't getting sued to see -who- DaTruthSquad is. Google is getting sued to reveal if the guy is the former mayor. Not to say that everyone is angelic, but, in all probability, DaTruthSquad is probably a crook himself.

In other words, they're asking for a single bit of information: true/false, not a string. If true, it certainly dampens the spin put on this story.

Re:DON'T GET HYSTERICAL : Other Side of the Story

[Jherek Carnelian]

Note that the point is, Google isn't getting sued to see -who- DaTruthSquad is. Google is getting sued to reveal if the guy is the former mayor. Not to say that everyone is angelic, but, in all probability, DaTruthSquad is probably a crook himself. I'd say Weeks is twisting the case, not the EFF.
This is what it SOUNDS like it boils down to:
They think somebody (Moskovitz) lied under oath.
So they want to go and pursue someone else who may or may not be Moskovitz.

That sounds like really bad precedent. If person A does something suspect that should not cause person B's rights to be infringed upon.

What they ought to be doing is serving a subpoena on person A - the one they actually suspect of breaking the law - something like a forensic check of his PC to see if he has login information for the blogger account.

Re:DON'T GET HYSTERICAL : Other Side of the Story

[svnt]

Manalapan's attorneys are simply asking Google to establish whether Moskovitz was telling the truth when he denied he was the blogger in court papers related to the land deal lawsuit.

If it's so simple, why don't they subpoena for the ex-mayor's PC and make the determination that way? Maybe because they can't? Maybe it's too much work? There is no reason an anonymous blogger needs to be outed so that they can make a determination of whether the blogger was one person.

Maybe they really do want to know who the blogger is and if it happens to be the ex-mayor, all the better.

Re:DON'T GET HYSTERICAL : Other Side of the Story

[ntk]

You can check out the original subpoena here, to see what information they are attempting to find out from Google. It's not a single bit.

More information here:
http://www.eff.org/cases/manalapan-v-moskovitz

Re:DON'T GET HYSTERICAL : Other Side of the Story

[slashqwerty]

Note that the point is, Google isn't getting sued to see -who- DaTruthSquad is. Google is getting sued to reveal if the guy is the former mayor.

As another respondant mentioned, the subpoena asks for a lot more than Google's affirmation that the blogger is/isn't the former mayor. It specifically requests the blogger's:

1. Account holder name
2. mailing address
3. email address
4. telephone number
5. URL
6. IP address
7. browser type and language
8. and any and all account information including account settings and profile information.
9. Copies of weblog posts and comments, including drafts
10. Any and all email received by Google from the account holder
11. Any and all emails sent on Google's server by the account holder
12. ...
13. and any other information associated with this account

Re:DON'T GET HYSTERICAL : Other Side of the Story

[jeffkjo1]

As Bob Dylan wrote: "In Jersey everything's legal, as long as you don't get caught."

Slashdot needs to see more Traveling Wilburys references... Keep up the good work.

Re:DON'T GET HYSTERICAL : Other Side of the Story

[tjstork]

As another respondant mentioned, the subpoena asks for a lot more than Google's affirmation that the blogger is/isn't the former mayor. It specifically requests the blogger's

Um, why does that link not work? Is this a legitimate document? For that matter, why did, if he is engaged in free speech, the DaTruthSquad take down all of his original posts?

Re:DON'T GET HYSTERICAL : Other Side of the Story

[slashqwerty]

Um, why does that link not work? Is this a legitimate document?

Obviously something went wrong with the way I posted it. I think I know what went wrong (I used spaces instead of %20). Let me try again. If that doesn't work, I copied the link from another response to your post (actually a response to a response). ntk responded to the first response to your post so you can find the link there.

Re:DON'T GET HYSTERICAL : Other Side of the Story

[tjstork]

Obviously something went wrong with the way I posted it. I think I know what went wrong (I used spaces instead of %20).

It works fine. Thanks. It's a pretty creepy read, actually. But, it feels like a normal discovery subpoena. Except, I think the lawyer that filed it probably should have thought better than to be so heavy handed with Google. I wonder if he could be sanctioned for lying in the interview. I read his quote, and he said, flat out, that this was not an attempt to overturn the 1st amendment, but, actually, in his document, in fact, it is. Somehow I thought lawyers, as officers of the court, are supposed to tell the truth.

Of course, DaTruthSquad is really Moscowitz, I'm sure of it from reading his most recent posts. So ironically, the township is probably right and the guy probably committed perjury and is using his anonymity to cover it up. So, our shitty choice is protecting a guy that lied in court, which is pretty bad, in order to protect anonymous postings, and I think the guy that lies in court gets to walk... It's like the 5th amendment... you can't put someone in a position to incriminate themselves.

The more things change....

[iknownuttin]

From da blog: Please follow closely how YOUR tax dollars are being spent by da comments made by Manalapan's hand-picked legal experts

Izn't dat da truth!

I don't know who's dumberer, da blogger or da people sooing him!

They gave this guy all of this attention. As someone trying to get a site up and running, getting folks to view your site is the hardest thing next to getting content.

Kuddos to this guy for getting the free publicity and I'm beginning to question the EFF's strategies here and their choices of battles.

Re:The more things change....

[Froboz23]

I was having great difficulty reading the blogger's site. Fortunately I found the following translation program, which you can use to make the text readable:

#Translate from Dumbass to English:
s/ [Dd]a / the /mg

free speech doesn't not mean anonymous

[timmarhy]

The problem the blogging community fails to understand, is that you are perfectly free to say what you want, but you NOT free to do it without accountability. If you jump on a website and say things that aren't true and could ruin a person's career then you can damn well can't hide behind the banner of anonymous free speech.

Re:free speech doesn't not mean anonymous

[Todd Knarr]

Yes, but you fail to understand the other side of that: you are not free to find someone's identity just because they're speaking. Before you can do that you must (or at least should) show that what they said is in fact untrue or a threat to someone's career or the like.

This isn't new. In law the first thing a plaintiff has to do is state a claim: say exactly how they were damaged and which law the damaging acts broke. The first defense a defendant has is failure to state a claim, that is to show that however much the plaintiff might want to sue the defendant the plaintiff hasn't stated how defendant damaged them or why defendant wasn't entitle to take that action. Note that simply being damaged isn't in itself sufficient. For instance if I'm loaning you my second car I can seriously mess with your life, put you out of a job and force you into bankruptcy merely by taking the car back, and despite the damage I did to you you couldn't sue me over it because, absent some agreement between us where I said I wouldn't take back the car, I'm legally entitled to take back my car any time I want.

Re:free speech doesn't not mean anonymous

[Detritus]

The Supreme Court disagrees with you.

McIntyre v. Ohio Election Commission

I'm all for anonymity but what if...

[vux984]

But what if the blogger is in fact the guy being sued for malpractice or someone directly involved in the case? Should that still be protected? Should someone be allowed to create 'sock puppet sympathizers' to defend them? To editorialize on their behalf? To criticize their opponents with impunity?

Something seems wrong with that. When speaking anonymously its easy to say things because you have no personal accountability for what's said. That can be used for good and for evil. I'm not sure it should be automatically protected.

After all, we'd be outraged if Walmart managers started series of grassroots anti-union blogs in a number of places... "I'm just an anonymous low level walmart employee like you whose against the unionization because... reason reason reason reason... and I'm posting anonymously because I fear retaliation from the union rabble rousers who just want to consolidate power for themselves. I we unionize they'll win, and we'll all lose. And then over the following weeks posted all kinds of stuff criticising the union organizers in every way imaginable."

Each blog would repeat the others and manufacture 'truth by repetition'.

There'd be no way to prove it was management, because of course:

We must protect anonoymous online journalists!!111!

Re:Freedom of Spee... ah Responsibility

[jafiwam]

Since when does "responsibility" equate to retaliation by some petty bureaucrat as in the case here?

It seems to me the responsible citizen doesn't let their government officers get away with strong-arm tactics, thievery and all out corruption. That's where responsibility comes in. Not with "leave an easy trail for someone to key your car".

Who is this guy?

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

Can someone give me his name and address? I want to personally congratulate him on his noble crusade for anonymity!

Selective Enforcement

[internic]

You are probably breaking three or four laws right now and you do not even know it.

The township can make the guy's life hell-- can make his friend's lives hell so he loses his friends (assuming it is a guy).

This is very likely true. To amplify this point, I can say that in my town (a small town of a little over 1000 homes) there are many laws about all sorts of ridiculous minutiae that are only selectively enforced. These include laws that say, for example, that your trash cans can't be visible from the road (unless it's trash day), regulate the length of your grass, etc. As an experiment, one day I walked around my area of the town (which does not seem to be exceptional in any way) and looked for violations of the ordinances. I found roughly one half of the houses I passed had a violation readily apparently from walking by on the road, and that was only based on the ones I remember off the top of my head. This completely ignores other issues like applying for permits, traffic tickets, etc.

I think most localities have a lot of overly broad, unnecessary, largely unenforced laws like this which essentially mean the government (and other people with influence) have the de facto power to go after whomever they please. Thankfully, at least in my town, it's not currently used too often with too much malice. I'd like to see such laws repealed, but, based on town meetings I've been to, I don't think most other people see it that way.

Re:I'm all for anonymity but what if...

[NeutronCowboy]

Why are we listening to blogs in the first place? If what the blogger says is true, does it matter if it's the old mayor? If it isn't true - why keep on reading it?

Re:Freedom of Spee... ah Responsibility

[Red Flayer]

Rather than trying to find some cloak of invisibility he should be preparing his defence with his lawyer.

You're not American, are you?

It should be noted that America's laws re: libel and slander are much more permissive than those in Britain or most formerly British colonies.

This is most certainly political speech, and anonymity is important to preserving free speech when fear of retribution is a factor (Talley v. California, 362 U.S. 60, 65 (1960).

See Dendrite International, Inc. v. Doe No. 3, 775 A.2d 756, 771 (N.J. App.Div. 2001) for establishment of criteria underwhich the state of NJ can/should overturn the right of anonymity in favor of the defamation claims.

It's also important to note that the NJ Constitution is even more protective of free speech rights than the US Constitution -- the state (and local governments) have much less right to abridge free speech in NJ.

We go through this every time.

[khasim]

Tell me then, why do we have the Bill or Rights?

The "Bill of Rights" is the name given to the Amendments to The Constitution. If another Amendment is passed, it too will be placed on the Bill of Rights.

If nothing in the Constitution says that the government can, say, search my house, why bother specifically saying that the government can NOT search my house?

Because in certain circumstances the duly authorized agents of the government need to search your home.

Therefore, The Constitution (and the Bill of Rights) needs to EXPLICITLY state WHAT is happening and WHY and what the checks and balances are.

What's the point?

I've explained that. And it would not take much in the way of mental effort to understand it.

That you refuse shows that you are trolling.

Re:We go through this every time.

[mrchaotica]

The "Bill of Rights" is the name given to the Amendments to The Constitution. If another Amendment is passed, it too will be placed on the Bill of Rights.

That's not true. The Bill of Rights consists of Amendments 1 through 10, which all happened to be written at the same time shortly after the main body of the Constitution because people complained (rightly!) that unless the Constitution enumerated some of the most important rights, that the government would find it too easy to infringe upon them. The rest of the Amendments, which came later, are not considered to be part of the Bill of Rights whether they enumerate rights (e.g. the 14th Amendment, due process etc.) or not (e.g. the 17th Amendment, direct election of senators).

Re:We go through this every time.

[ArcherB]

The "Bill of Rights" is the name given to the Amendments to The Constitution. If another Amendment is passed, it too will be placed on the Bill of Rights.

Uh, The Bill of Rights is the name given to the FIRST TEN Amendments to the Constitution. The fact that you did not know that pretty much nullifies anything you have to say on the subject. I would explain how powers not specified to the Federal Government are delegated to the states or the people and how it relates to this case (local government), but I don't want to jump to far ahead. Get back to me when you've invested the "mental effort" to understand the principles.

Please, make sure you are knowledgeable on a given subject before you try to insult someone. You don't want to be the one holding a knife at a gun fight. (Figuratively speaking, of course.)

Re:We go through this every time.

[0100010001010011]

Please tell me that you aren't American or haven't passed Middle school social studies yet.

The Bill of Rights is the first 10 amendments. No more no less.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights

It's more or less a Constitution Hot Fix. They released the thing then went "Oh shit. We forgot something."

Re:Freedom of Spee... ah Responsibility

[PWNT]

he doesnt have to, instead the procsecution (in a case of libel/slander) must prove MALICIOUS INTENT (in the USA only, laws may be different where you live, get a lawyer, not legal advice) free speech is most notably curtailed with 'fire' in a crowded building and libel laws. Libel laws exist to prevent people from spreading falsehoods which undermine a persons reputation and standing. If he was satarizing (then he's a bad humourist), or ignorantly shouting without understanding the implications(in which case he is dumb and wasn't actually trying to do anything beyond get attention) , or telling the truth(100% win rate here). basically the state in this case is in a tough position to convict or get court orders for anything.

MOD PARENT UP

[jdjbuffalo]

This is exactly how the situation should be treated.

Re:I'm all for anonymity but what if...

[vux984]

If what the blogger says is true, does it matter if it's the old mayor? If it isn't true - why keep on reading it?

1) People generally have no way to tell if its true or not. Many things don't even have a really knowable truth value. (Is music piracy helping or harming artists overall?) Most interesting questions don't have simple one word answers.

2) True or not, if it makes for a good juicy story, people will believe it droves. If the 'corrupt womanizing simpson-ish' mayor is writing the piece but is claiming to be an anonymous hardworking millworker who goes to church every sunday with his family, the story will have credibility with a group of people who would have rejected it out of hand if they knew the mayour wrote it... even if they can't know exactly which 'millworker' its supposedly from.

ie The mayors 'version' of truth, might be a lot more saleable if its perceived (indeed, especially if its perceived) as not coming from the mayor. And of course, anything that is sympathetic to the mayor will be a lot more credible if its not perceived as being written by him.

Re:Freedom of Spee... ah Responsibility

[Chris Burke]

The right to speak your mind does not mean that you cannot be held accountable for your statements.

Yes, in a general, abstract sense. The KKK has the freedom to utter hateful speech, but they are as consequence viewed as hateful bigots and reviled by all non-racists. That's a form of "accountability".

As far as legal accountability, that can only occur under a few select cases such as libel, slander, or fraud. Unless the township can show probable cause that the speech was actually illegal then they have no basis to seek out this person's identity and hold them "accountable". Trying to out someone because you don't like what they are saying is not an accepted form of "accountability" for free speech.

Correction.

[khasim]

The Bill of Rights is only the first 10 Amendments.

Please pay particular attention to Amendment IX and X.

Re:Freedom of Speech can be dangerous

[Jeng]

In the case that you mentioned, of a member of the military openly discussing military movement it is not a legal use of free speech since it does put peoples lives in danger.

I imagine there are a ton and a half of precedent on that topic alone.

This is anonymously informing the population about what is going on in the local government. This is not putting anyones lives in danger, it could very well be considered a public duty. I would put this under the same idea as a reporter protecting their source.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

A simple case of "Anonymous Political Activity"

[Zatchmort]

In case there was any doubt, anonymous political activity IS protected by the constitution. See especially McIntyre v. Ohio, in which the Court ruled that a woman could not be fined just for distributing anonymous political pamphlets. It's also the reason the KKK is allowed to march in parades wearing masks.

Re:END MODERATOR ABUSE

[Anonymous Coward]

Most of you are a bunch of mindless sheeple.

This word always, without exception, applies to anyone who uses it.

Drafts? E-Mails?

[XenoPhage]

Ok, I'm a tad confused now.. I can understand needing the guys contact info to sue him. And if he broke the law, then fine. But why do they need his Blog Drafts and Emails? Those can't possibly be something they can sue him for..

Re:Freedom of Speech can be dangerous

[psychicninja]

While I was deployed to the Middle East one of the boys (I refuse to say he is a man after I found out what he was doing) was telling his mother by way of email and posting in his blog when and where our ship would be.

I don't understand what this has to do with the topic... Was this soldier emailing his mother anonymously? You're just talking about someone giving out information that he shouldn't. Of course freedom of speech can be dangerous, which is why many agree that libel and slander laws are acceptable. But, I would contend that restriction of freedom of speech is far more dangerous. (*cough*China*cough*)

Anonymity is a shield from tyranny of the majority

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder if this http://www.epic.org/free_speech/watchtower.html/ Supreme Court case relates.

"Anonymity--the ability to conceal one's identity while communicating--enables the expression of political ideas, participation in the government process, membership in political associations, and the practice of religious belief without fear of government intimidation or public retaliation."

I'll post anonymously in keeping with the spirit of things.

Re:Prior restraint and pamphleteeringSOLVED BY GOV

[Nom du Keyboard]

anonymous Pamphleteering. As I recall the common law is that you can do so anonymously. But there's also no right to that anonymity. That is, the Government or whom ever is not prevented from piercing your anonymity if they can.

The government "solved" this problem by forcing printer and copier manufacturer's -- especially color printer manufacturers -- to embed identifying printer information (e.g. brand, model, serial number) in the background of the images. If you want to protest safely and anonymously, don't you dare print any of your tracts on any printer that can be tied to you.

Obligatory: In Soviet Russia, they registered and kept samples of your typewriters.

Re:Par for the courseYOU CAN'T SAY THAT ABOUT NJ

[Nom du Keyboard]

Welcome to the Garden State. Never let it be said local officials were ever too happy about having their judgment questioned. When it comes to mayors, school boards, and township committees, N.J. is a hotbed for corruption, and whenever someone calls someone else out,

The subpoena for all of Billsaur's contact information, IP address, MAC address, ISP information, MP3 files shared, Slashdot posts, previews, e-mail addresses, and preference settings will be arriving in 5...4...3...2...

Re:I'm all for anonymity but what if...

[NeutronCowboy]

True or not, if it makes for a good juicy story, people will believe it droves.

If that's the case, our problem is not that anonymous bloggers can say anything they want, but that an uneducated, gullible segment of the population believes what it wants to believe. I'd rather work on this.

Re:I'm all for anonymity but what if...

[Just Some Guy]

After all, we'd be outraged if Walmart managers started series of grassroots anti-union blogs in a number of places...

Only the hypocrites among us. The rest would realize that Wal-Mart's employees also enjoy the freedom to speak, even when we don't approve of the message.

Re:I'm all for anonymity but what if...

[jeepien]

After all, we'd be outraged if Walmart managers started series of grassroots anti-union blogs in a number of places... "I'm just an anonymous low level walmart employee like you whose against the unionization because... reason reason reason reason... and I'm posting anonymously because I fear retaliation from the union rabble rousers who just want to consolidate power for themselves. I we unionize they'll win, and we'll all lose. And then over the following weeks posted all kinds of stuff criticising the union organizers in every way imaginable."

You mean you don't think that goes on already, all the time?

Re:Can you mod it?

[Harmonious Botch]

Which moron modded parent flamebait? He is addressing a comment in the GP post and presents a fact ( "...Right to Anonymity is not listed there..." ), with a reference ( "...the constitution..." ) to back it up. As someone's sig says, diagreement is not a reason for modding down.

Whew, had to do a double take...

[anlprb]

From this post I thought I was reading Digg. Ehh, when they all move up to Canada, at least I get to read http://fouillee.com/

Heh, let's see how many babelfish that...

Sorry, I found it funny.

Free speech?

[BritneySP2]

Does anybody here realize that if you have to be anonymous to be able to speak freely, it is not free speech.

Anonymous speech is just as good as a lie.

Anybody who speaks out must be personally accountable for what he or she says; please note that the accountability is not equivalent to a form of harassment.

Re:Free speech?

[aeschenkarnos]

This quickly leads to no-one saying anything, because the cost to the speaker exceeds the benefits to the speaker of speaking out, even though the benefit to everyone involved may be great.

Re:Free speech?

[celle]

And where do you get that idea? Read some history and get a clue or worse look at some current events in Russia. Accountability is just spin for low level harassment. If you can be controlled by someone else, you're not really free are you? Say some words, get harassed, don't say anything again. Kind of defeats the whole concept of freedom of speech doesn't it? Because you've just censored yourself. Nice being controlled isn't it. That's what free is, to do something without being held accountable. You can't be truly free with accountability, otherwise you'd be looking over your shoulder all the time and the limited behavior that represents.

Corporate greed during the Iraq war is a good example of free because how much of the money they stole(overcharged) are we ever going to get back or even know where it went.(unknown)

Re:Free speech?

[/dev/trash]

tell that to Publius.

Re:Free speech?

[DNAtsol]

The issue is quite simple really. If the poster/commenter wishes to be taken seriously that person merely (and I say this with with a certain amount of skepticism) supports the arguments presented with evidence from credible sources (links or offline sources). Or frankly, any source and let the reader judge the credibility of the source. Why should a name be required of add credibility or call into question the credibility of any critique of a particular issue. In academia, one of the hallmarks of manuscript review is anonymity. The individual submits a piece of research for independent review and the names of all involved are kept off the record such the the work can be fairly judged on it's merits. Granted the web is a little, OK a lot, different, but the basic principle still holds. If the argument and critique has merit the vast majority of the readers will accept it, follow up and support the argument or find flaws and debunk the argument. At no time does the author have any relevance to the issue.

Re:Free speech?

[BritneySP2]

Say some words, get harassed

No free speech, then. Exactly my point.

Imagine, N. Koreans (say) discovered a way of staying anonymous while speaking publicly. Would that mean that freedom of speech now exist in N. Korea?

What you seem to not understand is that freedom, in general, is not merely a physical ability to do something without consequences; rather, it is a human right and, to count as such, it must be granted by the law and guaranteed by the authorities.

Re:Free speech?

[BritneySP2]

Human rights based on anonymity is an evil and, in fact, an absurd idea. I was just stating something that should be obvious. Why should everyone seek anonymity to be able to exercise his or her human rights - the ones that should be guaranteed under the law? Quite simple, really.

USA has jumped the shark [was: Re:Can you feel it?

[Maow]

You are being just as bad as the apathetic by taking on a cut and run mentality.

I understand where you're coming from, but he's right. USA has "jumped the shark" and it ain't gonna get better.

Go down with the ship or escape the insanity, but governing the USA is akin to herding a litter of retarded cats.

Re:The Federalist Papers

[ls -la]

I think you're a little confused there. What they did was defend against criticism that the Constitution didn't explicitly grant rights by saying that the rights were guaranteed implicitly, and that explicit inclusion would eventually lead to such rights being construed as the only rights granted to the people by the constitution. It is possible, perhaps even likely, that without the bill of rights, the freedoms expressed in it would have been eroded more than they currently are, but it is also possible that we would have more freedoms now.
It is unfortunate that the bill of rights is so strictly interpreted nowadays.

Re:END MODERATOR ABUSE

[UncleTogie]

This word always, without exception, applies to anyone who uses it.

Only idiots deal in absolutes. ;)

Re:Freedom of Spee... ah Responsibility

[aeschenkarnos]

There's a fine line between "be held accountable" and "have vengeance taken upon you", and which is which generally depends on which side of the story you are on.

Silence Dogood anyone?

[AmigaHeretic]

In 1722 a series of letters appeared in the New-England Courant written by a middle-aged widow named 'Silence Dogood'. The letters poked fun at various aspects of life in colonial America, such as the drunkenness of locals and the fashion for hoop petticoats.

Silence was particularly fond of ridiculing Harvard. She complained that it had been ruined by corruption and elitism, and that most of its students learned nothing there except how to be conceited.

This was the first of many of Benjamin Franklin's hoaxes.

So I'm guessing some of the founding fathers of our nation and at least this Signer of the Declaration of Independence would have this guys back. ;-)

http://www.pbs.org/benfranklin/pop_dogood.htm
http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/dogood.html

Re:I'm all for anonymity but what if...

[vux984]

Only the hypocrites among us. The rest would realize that Wal-Mart's employees also enjoy the freedom to speak, even when we don't approve of the message.

Even when someone claims to be a WalMart employee when they aren't? In order to spread propaganda?

I have no problem with WalMart employees saying whatever they want in their blogs, whether its a lowly greeter or the CEO.

However I'm not sure I agree with the CEO impersonating the lowly greeters spread anti-union FUD. And I'm pretty sure that even if we let him do it, we shouldn't shield those sockpuppets anonymity by law to make sure he can't get unmasked.

Re:I'm all for anonymity but what if...

[vux984]

You mean you don't think that goes on already, all the time?

Of course it happens already, all the time.

But, we, as the 'slashdot crowd', don't usually clamour to enact laws to protect those FUD spreading sockpuppets from having the possibility of having their true identities revealed.

Re:I'm all for anonymity but what if...

[Just Some Guy]

Even when someone claims to be a WalMart employee when they aren't? In order to spread propaganda?

Yes, even then. First, understand that I don't think this is a good thing to be doing. I'm not pro-union, but neither am I pro-megacorp. Still, the natural freedoms enumerated in the first amendment extend to things I don't agree with. I don't see any constitutionally or philosophically sound reason why the Wal-Mart CEO shouldn't have the same rights I enjoy.

And I'm pretty sure that even if we let him do it, we shouldn't shield those sockpuppets anonymity by law to make sure he can't get unmasked.

I disagree. If I get to, he gets to (and vice versa). Maybe sometime I'll want to say something that he'll disagree with, and I don't want him to have the necessary precedent to shut me up. Again, it's not that I think he should be doing this, but that I truly believe that defending his rights is the same as defending mine.

Erroneous

[LandruBek]

Note that the point is, Google isn't getting sued to see -who- DaTruthSquad is. Google is getting sued to reveal if the guy is the former mayor.

You are mistaken: the town did indeed sue Google find out who daTruthSquad is, and also find out much, much more. According to the brief, the town of Manalapan wants to discover "the blogger's identity, communication, and 'all other information associated with the account.'" They explicitly request IP address, all emails sent to Google, and all emails daTruthSquad has ever sent via Google. "All information associated with the account" implies access to Gmail, to Google Calendar, Google Finance, Google search history. In other words, the township demanded to know EVERYTHING Google has on daTruthSquad: name, address (IP address, at least), who she or he corresponds with, how much money he or she has, favorite YouTube videos, the whole enchilada.

Freedom of speech - YES! But anonymously?

[jandersen]

One of the downsides of aloowing people to anonymously address the public is that the author cannot be held accountable. And accountability is a cornerstone of any society. Another cornerstone is trust - members of society have to trust the laws of that society, otherwise the whole system breaks down and we end up with nothing but the right of the strongest. Of course, if you are strong, you may not mind, but most of us are not. And I suspect if you feel the need to hide behind anonymity, then you are not strong.

In a free society, where the law guarantees your freedom of speech, the only consequences you should need to fear is that other people may give you an earful for saying what they don't like; but that is part of the price for have both society and freedom. It's a compromise and thus not perfect.

Time to be hoist by your own petard

[Torodung]

Bullshit.
The first and fifth amendments to the United states constitution both apply here.
1. I can say whatever the fuck I want, without worrying about the consequences of doing so, because, damnit, it's absolutely necessary to preserve my other rights. Bullshit.

Fire. Crowded theatre. No fire. People get trampled.

You order a hit. You go down for murder, even though all you did was speak.

Your right to free speech is always weighed against other intrinsic rights ("life" being a legal trump), and if you stomp all over the essential liberties of others ("I think we should BURN THIS TOWN DOWN!") you will be held accountable, as a point of fact, and a point of Con law.

5. My words cannot be used against me in any court of law. Bullshit. Have you never heard of a confession? What if you get recorded ordering that hit? You can not be compelled to testify. If you do so voluntarily, or unwittingly through a legal recording, it can absolutely be used against you.

That's why the man in blue says: "Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law."

IANAL. I learned this in high school civics. Your grasp of U.S. law is appalling.

--
Toro

Re:Time to be hoist by your own petard

[Kingrames]

In neither of those situations are you arrested for what you say.

You are arrested for what you do.
Note that you conveniently mention that there's no fire in that crowded theatre. What if there is? Is it still illegal to speak up? Your words are independent from your actions.

If I order a hit, that can be well documented, and evidence can be obtained that traces the hit back to me through a chain of command or financial records. No need for my own testimony there. My testimony will only muck up the opportunity to convict me. You think these criminals don't KNOW they're being watched? They deliberately speak in ways that would mislead people, using forms of elaborate encryption on their own speech.

In the case of inciting a riot, your mannerisms matter more than your words. You're always free to speak up. That's why you can't prevent someone from starting a riot, you can only punish afterwards, and the punishment is always weighed by the actual damage done.

"That's why the man in blue says: "Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law.""

Yes, and this has been used far too often to falsely incriminate those who are actually innocent. If you can't in any way comprehend that people can be wrong about their own guilt, you need to understand that first.

Re:Time to be hoist by your own petard

[computational super]

Fire. Crowded theatre. No fire. People get trampled.

Actually, if I had a wild urge to yell "fire!" in a crowded theater that was not on fire, and people actually got trampled, and I was actually arrested for it and forced to stand trial, my defense would be, "I thought I saw a fire. I must have been mistaken. Sorry."

See? Constitutional crisis averted!

Re:Time to be hoist by your own petard

[Torodung]

Yes. And you would then be subject to what is known as a "reasonable person" litmus test, and if the jury decided that your assessment was "unreasonable," you would still go down for incitement, and whatever consequences occurred, up to, and including manslaughter.

Similarly, you could go around beating the crap out of people after yelling "Oh my god, he's got a gun!" but if one of them pressed charges, chances are you'd go down for battery.

But it's still your best defense. That was hilarious. No one in their right mind would mount a first amendment defense against incitement charges in such a situation. There is no Constitutional crisis, just an illustration that not all speech is protected.

--
Toro

Re:Time to be hoist by your own petard

[Torodung]

I am aware that false confessions are frequently solicited, that prosecutors bury such things, and that strong rights are the only defense against corrupt authority figures. All people in authority must be held accountable by the people who grant them that authority. I am not claiming that we have "too much" freedom, just that an unqualified, "I can say whatever the fuck I want" (your words) is a bit more than the law allows. ;^)

--
Toro

Supreme Court on "anonymous pamphleteering"

[Ranten_N_Raven]

In 1995 the US Supreme Court ruled on "anonymous pamphleteering", the case was McINTYRE, EXECUTOR OF ESTATE OF McINTYRE, DECEASED v. OHIO ELECTIONS COMMISSION:

Under our Constitution, anonymous pamphleteering is not a pernicious, fraudulent practice, but an honorable tradition of advocacy and of dissent. Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. See generally J. Mill, On Liberty and Considerations on Representative Government 1, 3-4 (R. McCallum ed. 1947). It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation-and their ideas from suppression-at the hand of an intolerant society. The right to remain anonymous may be abused when it shields fraudulent conduct. But political speech by its nature will sometimes have unpalatable consequences, and, in general, our society accords greater weight to the value of free speech than to the dangers of its misuse. See Abrams v. United States, 250 U. S. 616, 630-631 (1919) (Holmes, J., dissenting). Ohio has not shown that its interest in preventing the misuse of anonymous election-related speech justifies a prohibition of all uses of that speech. The State may, and does, punish fraud directly. But it cannot seek to punish fraud indirectly by indiscriminately outlawing a category of speech, based on its content, with no necessary relationship to the danger sought to be prevented. One would be hard pressed to think of a better example of the pitfalls of Ohio's blunderbuss approach than the facts of the case before us.

The judgment of the Ohio Supreme Court is reversed.

It is so ordered.

Re:Just won a case like this in Idaho (of all plac

[ntk]

AC --

Could you call us again? Call +1 415 436 9333 and ask to speak to Matt Zimmermann. We'd like to speak to you about this.

d.
danny@eff.org