3 ms·

Free speech definitely. It's enshrined in our constitution. Anonymous speech though? I don't see any amendments about that. If you believe you are anonymous no

Free speech definitely. It's enshrined in our constitution. Anonymous speech though? I don't see any amendments about that. If you believe you are anonymous now, then I don't believe you have been paying attention to what the government has been able to do legally for the past 15 years.

SomeStupidPoint 10y ago
The Supreme Court has decided repeatedly that the right to speech includes the right to anonymous speech, and that has been the understanding from the beginning. Anonymous speech is essential to free political discourse. I don't believe that this account is anonymous, but that's different than prohibiting any account from being anonymous. There are lots of relatively easy ways to be anonymous (in a city) against even state level actors (for the purposes of publishing; hiding that you exist as a person is harder). They're not free, but we're talking $50-200 in equipment, which nearly anyone could get ahold of. I like to think I have a reasonable understanding of what the government is and isn't capable of doing, and Id point out that the last 15 years has also seen a transition from critics of surveillance speaking calmly about their concerns to filing lawsuits and hardening infrastructure against the government. The government hasn't been alone in ratcheting up their efforts, and it is indeed deeply disturbing that it seems we're on track for a showdown. Lots of people would be hurt if it came to Civil War 2: Cyberwar Boogaloo, yet how can we call ourselves Americans or patriots if we just throw away the core principles of the nation? Other people have laid down their lives to defend that freedom, and it is our obligation now to defend it with the same passion.
- akiselev 10y ago
  The problem is that the right of anonymous speech is a relatively new creation by the Supreme Court (the Supreme Court ruling everyone cites is McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission in 1995) and there isn't much precedent yet, especially when the case concerns a non-citizen or a port of entry. A more recent ruling in 2008 set some limits on the protection and established some tests for when someone can be legally deanonymized so already there is substantial creep against this protection. Primarily, many rights are relaxed at the border (like search and seizure in Carol v United States) because the sovereign's interests and duties must be balanced with constitutional protections. If this case ever makes it to the Supreme Court i wouldn't be surprised if they rule that the government can require you to disclose all of your social media accounts if you're a non-citizen and any accounts where you do not have a reasonable expectation of anonymity if you are a citizen (I.e., they'd get your Facebook account and any account where you posted identifying details like a personal or work email but not your 4chan account).
  - SomeStupidPoint 10y ago
    My point wasn't about having to reveal social media accounts you've not taken effort to hide, nor about the rights of non-citizens or citizens at boarder crossings. It was responding to a specific point made by another poster, about rights citizens have when choosing to speak (particularly on political issues). Also, given that much of the revolutionary war propaganda and the federalist/anti-federalist papers were published under pseudonyms, Id argue anonymized political speech has been part of the American tradition since before there was a US government.
    - akiselev 10y ago
      I understand, I simply wanted to add a little clarification on the right to anonymity and how it could apply in the case of the OP. I agree that anonymity has been a key part of the US political tradition since before the formation of the Union but it's important that it is codified into law and the judicial branch is allowed to review it.
icebraining 10y ago
If you believe you are anonymous now I agree, we're already not anonymous, hence your proposal is a waste of time and money.

SomeStupidPoint 10y ago

The Supreme Court has decided repeatedly that the right to speech includes the right to anonymous speech, and that has been the understanding from the beginning. Anonymous speech is essential to free political discourse. I don't believe that this account is anonymous, but that's different than prohibiting any account from being anonymous. There are lots of relatively easy ways to be anonymous (in a city) against even state level actors (for the purposes of publishing; hiding that you exist as a person is harder). They're not free, but we're talking $50-200 in equipment, which nearly anyone could get ahold of. I like to think I have a reasonable understanding of what the government is and isn't capable of doing, and Id point out that the last 15 years has also seen a transition from critics of surveillance speaking calmly about their concerns to filing lawsuits and hardening infrastructure against the government. The government hasn't been alone in ratcheting up their efforts, and it is indeed deeply disturbing that it seems we're on track for a showdown. Lots of people would be hurt if it came to Civil War 2: Cyberwar Boogaloo, yet how can we call ourselves Americans or patriots if we just throw away the core principles of the nation? Other people have laid down their lives to defend that freedom, and it is our obligation now to defend it with the same passion.

akiselev 10y ago
The problem is that the right of anonymous speech is a relatively new creation by the Supreme Court (the Supreme Court ruling everyone cites is McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission in 1995) and there isn't much precedent yet, especially when the case concerns a non-citizen or a port of entry. A more recent ruling in 2008 set some limits on the protection and established some tests for when someone can be legally deanonymized so already there is substantial creep against this protection. Primarily, many rights are relaxed at the border (like search and seizure in Carol v United States) because the sovereign's interests and duties must be balanced with constitutional protections. If this case ever makes it to the Supreme Court i wouldn't be surprised if they rule that the government can require you to disclose all of your social media accounts if you're a non-citizen and any accounts where you do not have a reasonable expectation of anonymity if you are a citizen (I.e., they'd get your Facebook account and any account where you posted identifying details like a personal or work email but not your 4chan account).
- SomeStupidPoint 10y ago
  My point wasn't about having to reveal social media accounts you've not taken effort to hide, nor about the rights of non-citizens or citizens at boarder crossings. It was responding to a specific point made by another poster, about rights citizens have when choosing to speak (particularly on political issues). Also, given that much of the revolutionary war propaganda and the federalist/anti-federalist papers were published under pseudonyms, Id argue anonymized political speech has been part of the American tradition since before there was a US government.
  - akiselev 10y ago
    I understand, I simply wanted to add a little clarification on the right to anonymity and how it could apply in the case of the OP. I agree that anonymity has been a key part of the US political tradition since before the formation of the Union but it's important that it is codified into law and the judicial branch is allowed to review it.

icebraining 10y ago

If you believe you are anonymous now I agree, we're already not anonymous, hence your proposal is a waste of time and money.