4 ms·
> destroying the anonymous nature of the internet (and probably unconstitutional under the First Amendment, to boot.) The First Amendment guarantees free expre
by paulddraper 3y ago
> destroying the anonymous nature of the internet (and probably unconstitutional under the First Amendment, to boot.)
The First Amendment guarantees free expression, not anonymous expression.
For example, there are federal requirements for identification for political messages. [1] These requirements do not violate the First Amendment.
[1] https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/advertising-and-disclaimers/ https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/advertisi...
- o11c 3y agoIn particular, "anonymous speech is required if you want to have free speech" is actually a very niche position, not a mainstream one. It just happens to be widely spammed in certain online cultures.
- paulddraper 3y agoCorrect. I am staunch believer in the moral and societal good of free speech. Anonymous speech is far more dubious. Like, protests seem valuable. Protests while wearing robes and masks however...
- TillE 3y ago> Protests while wearing robes and masks however This is absolutely permitted in America. It is illegal in countries like Germany which have no strong free speech protections.
- jonathankoren 3y agoNo. It is not "absolutely permitted in America". They're Klan Acts, because a bunch of guys in masks and robes marching through is obviously a threat of violence. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-mask_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-mask_law
- chasd00 3y agoThere’s no issue protesting in masks. Antifa did it all the time with no repercussions.
- jcranmer 3y agoThose laws are frequently overturned as unconstitutional, but may still remain on the books because we don't do a good job of clearing out laws that were ruled unconstitutional. As a general rule of thumb, almost every time someone brings an edge case about whether or not speech is First Amendment-privileged before SCOTUS, SCOTUS rules in favor of the speech. (The main exception is speech of students in school.) SCOTUS hasn't specifically ruled on anti-mask laws to my knowledge, but I strongly doubt it would uphold those laws.
- jonathankoren 3y agoThe last court case was 2004, and the New York anti-mask was upheld. You don’t have to pontificate. The link was right there.
- whiddershins 3y agoRandom aside, I haven’t seen NY enforce the anti mask legislation during the Halloween parade, various protests, or Covid. So I bet a new constitutional challenge could be erected.
- jonathankoren 3y agoYou're trolling right?
- protocolture 3y agoProtests while wearing robes and masks protect the protester from followup action, and it also protects their families. If you assume a just government that doesnt demand revenge for every petty slight, you are living in a fantasy land.
- harimau777 3y agoThere are places where it wouldn't be safe to protest without masks. In that case people effectively would be losing their freedom of speech if it isn't anonymous.
- TillE 3y agoAmerica has a very long tradition of anonymity being part of free speech, going back to the Federalist Papers. This is not some new online issue.
- unethical_ban 3y agoWealthy, politically connected men with the ability to read and write about political philosophy and get it distributed is a bit different situation than a thousand Russian AI trollbots posting bad-faith "opinions" on American current events.