Quote:I don't see anyone willing to give anything up here? I'm all for defending rights, by all means but explain this a little more to me cause I'm not seeing it. Are you arguing any restriction on speech is violation of the constitution? Or are you arguing conditions on speech is a violation of the constitution? Because there's several examples of limits on speech, but that's not even the case here. From what I've read they're simply requiring disclosure on sponsors of political adds, that's not even a restriction it's a disclosure clause which has been par the course for a long time. Now if they're saying for example channel 12 has to show a Democrat sponsored add for every Republican sponsored add then that's different but that's not what the article is talking about.

 

What if the government decided we could no longer post under a user name but instead had to give our regular names and addresses?   How does that differ from forcing disclosure of who is behind a political ad?  

 

There is a long history of anonymous political statements dating back to the dawn of democracy.   Here's an example: The Federalist Papers.   Or how about Common Sense?  

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Sens...amphlet%29

 

<i><b>"Common Sense</b></i>^[1] is a pamphlet written by Thomas Paine in 1775–76 that inspired people in the Thirteen Colonies to declare and fight for independence from Great Britain in the summer of 1776. The pamphlet explained the advantages of and the need for immediate independence in clear, simple language. It was published anonymously on January 10, 1776, at the beginning of the American Revolution and became an immediate sensation. It was sold and distributed widely and read aloud at taverns and meeting places."

 

"Historian Gordon S. Wood described <i>Common Sense</i> as "the most incendiary and popular pamphlet of the entire revolutionary era"."

---