What if the government decided we could no longer post under a user name but instead had to give our regular names and addresses? 

 

Message boards, social media, comments on articles would all be much more civil

---

I do not agree that attempting to swing votes in government in favor of special interests is inherently corrupt.   In fact, when you say, "swinging votes in government in the favor of the special interests..." aren't you just describing democracy itself?  This is how a democratic republic operates.  

 

You also say, "The voters have a right to know who is telling them the things they see on the idiot box."   Where in the Constitution does it say the voters have that right?  

 

Then you say, "An informed electorate is a good electorate."  Yes, absolutely.   But I can see a scenario where disallowing anonymous political speech would actually lead to a less informed electorate, if it deters people from making a political statement.   If you want to make a political statement through an advertisement, but were afraid that revealing your name could lead to some sort of retaliation against you, then you could be deterred from running that advertisement, and that could lead to a less informed electorate, not a more informed one.   What I am saying is, rights apply to everyone, and if you take away the right to run an anonymous political advertisement, you are not just taking that right away from millionaires and billionaires, you are also taking that right away from yourself.  

 

Why does it have to be in the constitution for it to be a right we should have?  Many things have been added to the constitution since the bill of rights, and more things will continue being added.  


The political process needs to be as open as possible.  You might as well argue that politicians should be allowed to vote on bills in private, and not have that revealed to the public because it 'infringes on their rights to be anonymous'. 


You say:


 

 

 

If you want to make a political statement through an advertisement, but were afraid that revealing your name could lead to some sort of retaliation against you, then you could be deterred from running that advertisement, and that could lead to a less informed electorate, not a more informed one

 

But you could just as easily say 


If you want to make a political statement through an advertisement, but couldn't afford it, then you could be deterred from running that advertisement, and that could lead to a less informed electorate, not a more informed one.  

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

Why does it have to be in the constitution for it to be a right we should have?  Many things have been added to the constitution since the bill of rights, and more things will continue being added.  

The political process needs to be as open as possible.  You might as well argue that politicians should be allowed to vote on bills in private, and not have that revealed to the public because it 'infringes on their rights to be anonymous'. 

You say:

 


 

But you could just as easily say 

If you want to make a political statement through an advertisement, but couldn't afford it, then you could be deterred from running that advertisement, and that could lead to a less informed electorate, not a more informed one.

Politicians are voting on behalf of the public, so that argument is without merit. This is far more like requiring every voter to publicize his vote in a public registry . The enumerated and Constitutionally protected right to free speech must be free of government interference and that should include the right to anonymity.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Politicians are voting on behalf of the public, so that argument is without merit. This is far more like requiring every voter to publicize his vote in a public registry . The enumerated and Constitutionally protected right to free speech must be free of government interference and that should include the right to anonymity.

Sources? Because it sure does not seem this way. 

---

Why does it have to be in the constitution for it to be a right we should have?  Many things have been added to the constitution since the bill of rights, and more things will continue being added.  


The political process needs to be as open as possible.  You might as well argue that politicians should be allowed to vote on bills in private, and not have that revealed to the public because it 'infringes on their rights to be anonymous'. 


You say:


 

 

But you could just as easily say 


If you want to make a political statement through an advertisement, but couldn't afford it, then you could be deterred from running that advertisement, and that could lead to a less informed electorate, not a more informed one.  

I have said as such here. There is nothing wrong with altering the constitution with the changing times. It's been added to and ruled on in ways that alter it's meaning many times since it's creation. The thing was written to be firm but in a manner as to be fluid as society grows and changes. 

---

Politicians are voting on behalf of the public, so that argument is without merit. This is far more like requiring every voter to publicize his vote in a public registry . The enumerated and Constitutionally protected right to free speech must be free of government interference and that should include the right to anonymity.

 

Where is that coming from? I'd have a real problem with that, but I've seen nothing even suggesting this?

---

I have no problem with it, then again I would never vote for a repub or dem, and those are the one's polluting the airways with their garbage. 

---

Where is that coming from? I'd have a real problem with that, but I've seen nothing even suggesting this?

 

It's an analogy not a suggestion. Forcing people to identify themselves to exercise their right to free speech is really no different than forcing them to identify themselves and their vote or forcing them to register to own a firearm or keeping a public register of what church or mosque you attend. It's a privacy issue and should be protected as free speech. The government and your neighbor has no right to know who you are when you exercise your rights. That people are for this shows how far we've come from those who lived in a society that DIDN'T permit it. We've been spoiled by what we've not experienced in our own lives that the Founding Fathers were willing to die to obtain.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

I have said as such here. There is nothing wrong with altering the constitution with the changing times. It's been added to and ruled on in ways that alter it's meaning many times since it's creation. The thing was written to be firm but in a manner as to be fluid as society grows and changes. 

 

 

Some things are supposed to be inalienable regardless of what a piece of paper says.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Some things are supposed to be inalienable regardless of what a piece of paper says.

 

And still we have a paper, a paper that is trumpeted by being the be all end all of many political arguments and rightly so. A paper, again that was designed to be malleable to fit with the times and the progression of society. Voting rights for women and all people ACTUALLY being free and not property should probably be considered inalienable wouldn't you agree? Yet we have the 13th and 19th amendments because knuckle heads sure didn't think so at the time. 

---