The Quelling of Political Speech

I want to start off tonight and let everyone know that there was a Rec Board meeting tonight, and the board decided on a supervisor.

I would like to take this time and respond to the recent article in The Dayton Review. First, I appreciate being called the "alternative newspaper," but the real purpose for this blog is to give a voice to everyone in Dayton.

The crux of the matter, it seemed to me, was that this blog was centered on anonymity. I briefly addressed this issue a month or so back, but I will discuss my reasoning again.

When I created this blog I felt it was important that people have a chance to have a voice and be heard. However, some people feel hesitant to let their feelings be known because of possible retaliation or their opinion being minimized. I will admit that anonymity is not perfect, but I feel it is the best option and gives people the best chance to let their voice be heard.

Another important point, the Constitution protects anonymous political speech. If anyone is wondering about that, I googled anonymous free speech today and came up with two cases protecting anonymous political speech. The two cases are: McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commissioner and Watchtower Bible v. Village of Stratton. I wanted to quote a portion of the McIntyre opinion:

"Writing for the Court, Justice Black noted that "[p]ersecuted groups and sects from time to time throughout history have been able to criticize oppressive practices and laws either anonymously or not at all." Id., at 64. Justice Black recalled England's abusive press licensing laws and seditious libel prosecutions, and he reminded us that even the arguments favoring the ratification of the Constitution advanced in the Federalist Papers were published under fictitious names. Id., at 64-65. On occasion, quite apart from any threat of persecution, an advocate may believe her ideas will be more persuasive if her readers are unaware of her identity. Anonymity thereby provides a way for a writer who may be personally unpopular to ensure that readers will not prejudge her message simply because they do not like its proponent. Thus, even in the field of political rhetoric, where "the identity of the speaker is an important component of many attempts to persuade," City of Ladue v. Gilleo, 512 U. S. ___, ___ (1994) (slip op., at 13), the most effective advocates have sometimes opted for anonymity. The specific holding in Talley related to advocacy of an economic boycott, but the Court's reasoning embraced a respected tradition of anonymity in the advocacy of political causes. This tradition is perhaps best exemplified by the secret ballot, the hard won right to vote one's conscience without fear of retaliation."

Another quote from McIntyre:

"Great works of literature have frequently been produced by authors writing under assumed names. Despite readers' curiosity and the public's interest in identifying the creator of a work of art, an author generally is free to decide whether or not to disclose her true identity. The decision in favor of anonymity may be motivated by fear of economic or official retaliation, by concern about social ostracism, or merely by a desire to preserve as much of one's privacy as possible. Whatever the motivation may be, at least in the field of literary endeavor, the interest in having anonymous works enter the marketplace of ideas unquestionably outweighs any public interest in requiring disclosure as a condition of entry. Accordingly, an author's decision to remain anonymous, like other decisions concerning omissions or additions to the content of a publication, is an aspect of the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment."

I believe the principles set forth above ring true in this situation. People are free to agree or disagree with my positions and these people can let their opinion be known on this blog. As noted, there are factors that go into deciding whether to stay anonymous, and one of those factors is official retaliation.

Case in point: This week Councilman Benson was issued a letter stating he was not in compliance with the dog registration ordinance. There was also an earlier verbal warning to him after a contentious city council meeting. Councilman Benson complied with the ordinance by registering his dogs.

This brings up an interesting point: how many letters or citations under this ordinance have been issued before this in recent years? Zero. This stinks of retaliation. Councilman Benson has been a vocal critic of the golf course and he gets a letter saying he was not in compliance with an ordinance. The argument can be made that the enforcement has to start somewhere and with someone. True, but only one letter was sent out and that letter was sent to one of the councilmen who has been a vocal critic of the golf course. If you have spoken out against the golf course, you better make sure your sidewalks are not cracked or make sure to have your dogs registered. Furthermore, there are other instances of this kind of "enforcement of ordinances" going on with other opponents of the golf course.

Hence, this is the main reason that the Dayton Observer is going to maintain its anonymity.