What Some Politicians Still Don’t Get: New York Times v. Sullivan

You may also like...

2 Responses

  1. Logan Roise says:

    I’m uneasy with anonymous speech. On the one hand, I understand the need to protect ones freedom of speech. On the other hand, however, I don’t really see how revealing the names of these individuals would violate that freedom. The best debates are ones where identities are known (i.e. the Money/Speech symposium on this blog just a short while ago). Public interest is best served because we know (or are given the opportunity to learn about) the credibility of the individuals that are engaged in the debate. We get to find out, for isntance, that politicans that claim they served in Vietnam didn’t, in fact, serve in Vietnam. In the end, it most likely matters little whether we know the true identities of online commentators or not because any Joe/Jane-Six-Pack can comment (i.e. me); but that doesn’t necessarily mean your identity is protected via the 1st amendment (maybe the 5.34th penumbra amendment would be the more appropriate one to use).

  2. The problem is what some politicians DO get about the Supreme court: That you never know what they’ll let you get away with until you try, and that, if you’re a public official, there’s no penalty for trying. Even if they haven’t let you get away with it before, there’s no telling when they’ll reverse course.