If campaign contributions amount to speech, then anonymity
in supporting candidates with money would seem to be a basic fundamental
right. Then, you ask, should
out-of-state religious donors who tried to support Proposition 8 in California
remain unnamed, and protected from public shaming or maybe boycotts? The question would have more sting if you go
back to 1978, when there was a referendum (the Briggs Initiative) which would
have banned gay teachers.
As for speech, I’ve always thought it was more
effective when your name s on it. But
then, there is conflict of interest, and the idea you can’t bite the hand that
feeds you. I’ve been in that place
before.
It strikes me that a significant portion of younger
people don’t see anonymity as essential.
Facebook, after all, requires a real name for a personal account. It’s policy
is worth reviewing, here.
Even as I read this, I wonder how this has played
out in “Arab spring” protests.
Until maybe ten years ago, it was possible to lead a
“double life”. Remember how recently the
military had “don’t ask, don’t tell”. Remember
when there was a public life and a private life? No more.
Should campaigns be any different? Remember, a few years ago, there was even a
flak over whether blogs should be viewed as “political endorsements” and
accounted for. That, thankfully, blew
over.
First picture, from EFF, rally on survelliance in DC today; others, mine, from AIDSWalk, which passed the NSA-surveillance protest rally.
No comments:
Post a Comment