Helium Sucks at Civil Rights

Helium Sucks at Civil Rights

First Amendment Right to Anonymous Free Speech but Helium www.helium.com Sucks at Civil Rights anyway.

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled repeatedly that the right to anonymous free speech is protected by the First Amendment. A much-cited 1995 Supreme Court ruling in McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission reads:

Protections for anonymous speech are vital to democratic discourse. Allowing dissenters to shield their identities frees them to express critical, minority views . . . Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. . . . It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation . . . at the hand of an intolerant society.

The tradition of anonymous speech is older than the United States. Founders Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay wrote the Federalist Papers under the pseudonym "Publius," and "the Federal Farmer" spoke up in rebuttal. The US Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized rights to speak anonymously derived from the First Amendment.

The right to anonymous speech is also protected well beyond the printed page. Thus, in 2002, the Supreme Court struck down a law requiring proselytizers to register their true names with the Mayor's office before going door-to-door.

These long-standing rights to anonymity and the protections it affords are critically important for the Internet. As the Supreme Court has recognized, the Internet offers a new and powerful democratic forum in which anyone can become a "pamphleteer" or "a town crier with a voice that resonates farther than it could from any soapbox."

On December 21, 2007, Superior Court Judge Terence Flynn granted EFF's motion to quash the Township's September 26th subpoena seeking the identity of datruthsquad and denied a motion by the township to authorize future subpoenas, finding that the subpoena amounted to "an unjust infringement on the blogger's First Amendment rights" and that the blogger "has a right not to be drawn into the litigation." Judge Flynn denied the motion for a protective order, finding that it was unnecessary at this time.

More from Judge Flynn's ruling from the bench:

"And I [...] recognize that there are First Amendment issues with regard to disputes with the past administration. And that anyone [...] has a right to make their feelings clear. And they have a right not to be intimidated by the issuance of discovery requests in order to shut them down. For that reason, in many ways, the authority cited by the intervenor is correct and accurate. And first of all the [...] blogger, if in fact it's an individual person, and I'm assuming absent any evidence that it is another individual person, has a right not to be drawn into the litigation and forced to reveal identity or to impede on his or her First Amendment rights simply on a suspicion, however founded or unfounded, and I don't believe that this suspicion is sufficiently founded at this point to determine that it is Mr. Moskovitz. That person should not be drawn into the litigation and forced to abide by the rules with regard to exchange of information that the parties have, as opposed to a third party. So the Court is satisfied that there is no authority under law for this particular subpoena to obtain this private information. To allow the subpoena would be undue and unjust infringement on the blogger's First Amendment rights. There's no factual basis at this point, other than a mere suspicion for the justification. And ultimately that even if the information were obtained, it would be so remote to the actual elements of this litigation that it would not be admissible under any circumstances."

• First Cash v. John Doe
• Manalapan v. Moskovitz
New Jersey Township tries to unmask anonymous online critic.
• Dominick v. MySpace
• Fix Wilson Yard v. City of Chicago
• E. Van Cullens v. John Doe
• RIAA v. Verizon Case Archive
• Doe v. Cahill
• Merkey v. Yahoo SCOX, Groklaw et. al.

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/06pdf/06-278.pdf

http://www.eff.org/issues/anonymity

I Write My Stories To Have a Positive Impact On My Community

D. Brian Burghart (brianb@newsreview.com) is as good as they get for an editor. Brian, who has many awards, wrote in the April 30, 2009 Reno News & Review:

“Let me say this clearly: There are all kinds of newspapers, pamphlets and magazines in this area that posture their advertising as articles and stories. We don't do that. It is never my job, other editors' jobs or freelance writers' jobs to promote any business, be it local, big or small. It's not our job to pretend objectivity or balance or that we can be absolutely comprehensive. It is our job to write about our experiences from our idiosyncratic and independent points of view and to be honest as possible. If we have conflicts of interest, we avoid or disclose them. We write for our readers and nobody else. I don't know how else to say this: We put out the best newspaper we can with the knowledge and resources we have.”

That position, which I agree with, echoes the Mission Statement of the News & Review, a paper in Sacramento and Chico, California and Reno, Nevada that is highly respected, popular and the recipient of many industry awards. That Mission Statement is:

“To publish great newspapers that are successful and enduring. To create a quality work environment that encourages employees to grow professionally while respecting personal welfare. To have a positive impact on our communities and make them better places to live.”

I've modeled my writings on Brian Burghart and what I've read in the Reno News & Review.

So, I'm gonna paraphrase Brian and the News & Review's Mission Statement here:

Let me say this clearly: I write my stories to have a positive impact on my community and make it a better place to live. There are all kinds of newspapers, pamphlets and magazines that posture their advertising as articles and stories. I don't do that.

I want to publish in great newspapers and blogs that are successful and enduring that create a quality work environment that encourages employees and their freelance writers to grow professionally while respecting personal welfare.

It is never my job, editors' jobs or other freelance writers' jobs to promote any business or individual, be it or they local, big or small. It's not my job to pretend objectivity or balance or that I can be absolutely comprehensive. It is my job to write about my experiences from my idiosyncratic and independent point of view and to be honest as possible. If I have a conflict of interest, I avoid or disclose them. I write for my readers and nobody else. I don't know how else to say this: I put out the best stories I can with the knowledge, that I have verified, and resources I have.

I do not ask for permission or forgiveness for my audacity here. In writing my Among Us exposes, my intent is not simply to chronicle these events. Have we not learned lessons from bureaucrats, lawyers, politicians, corportists, and judges? I have explored tributaries to the river of events. My exposes are stepping stones out into muddied, often very deep, water, complete with rough edges and breaking waves. As any bureaucrat, lawyer, politician, corportist, and judge know, sometimes the truth is complicated. Deftly handled, stories and tales can become tools or weapons while facts are just . . . facts. One does not need to participate in history to create history. Lawyers, propagandists, corportists, and deluded religious followers remain blithely unaware of the blinders they wear, of the dark forms they refuse to see. I state plights and needs.

The idea of setting up an online identity is not new. What was new about the online identities was the linking of online personas together as Friends. That allowed the innovation of clicking on Friends pictures, graphic or avatar to get to that online persona's profile page. That put all these stand alone online personas in a familiar and understandable perspective. Friends online are similar to friends off line. Both are instant audiences. Friends are powerful networks as every event and every person leaves its mark, both in fine detail and in broad strokes.

To me, gloating promoters of the Information Age all too often forget that knowledge has always been about connecting people and their behaviors, not just in collecting information. There has been and continues to be a democratic demand for more relevancy and currency in people's and organization's behaviors, and to holding people and organizations accountable for their conduct.

I believe that the Internet, the servant to a Knowledge Economy, is the true democratic voice of facts and free speech beliefs. Using the Internet to do a search is simply a reversion to the search of any life for credentials and integrity of another's life.

Most have access to a computer. Public schools and libraries have free public computer access and training. Most can now instantly post previously hidden facts and their free speech opinions, and access others' post of previously hidden, even deliberately suppressed, facts and free speech opinions. Happenings and ideology that previously would never have been disseminated are now readily found with a simple Google search. A Google search is just a search for credentials and integrity.

The result is that individuals and organizations are suddenly finding their previously hidden illegal, corrupt, lazy, or immoral behaviors, and their secrets, avarice, cravings, or even mistakes, suddenly and rightfully very publicly front and center on the Internet. Integrity, or its' lack, is immediately exposed in a simple Google search.

Harmful behaviors that once were self-servingly known then to be ephemeral, and smugly relied on by the licentious perpetuators to be such, are now instantly available for analysis and judgment in the permanence the of the Internet. In response, evil raises its specious clamor when it finds itself suddenly and rightfully in the expose spotlight of the Internet. Once exposed, evil then aggressively applies its Unclean Hands to spurious ridicule and makes heavy-handed, manipulative intentionally damaging legal threats of, or illegally pursues, defamation to brutally and wrongly silence the dissemination of facts and muzzle free speech beliefs. The Internet though, has rightfully, quietly and powerfully abdicated the corrupt in its' contemptuous and former commanding amoral influence in silencing facts and free speech beliefs.

http://www.dse.vic.gov.au/CA25677D007DC87D/LUbyDesc/Cartoon1/$File/cartoon1.jpg