Actions
(11.09 KB, 312x162)
>>/8885/ Thx anon, this is a critical issue. Transparency vs Anonymity This new Mass. law against secret videoing is an attack on free speech; if it stands, other blue states will try the same thing. Interestingly, Project V and Q group have a lot in common. Both rely on the protection of the right to retain anonymity in communications. Their lawyer, as anons know, is Benjamin Barr. Here's the first line of a recent article he wrote: Anonymous political speech has been the scorn of entrenched powers and the saving balm of emerging voices throughout English and American history. In its simplest terms, anonymous speech is communication that does not identify the speaker or identifies a synonymous persona. Although for some, anonymous political speech is inherently negative, its value remains of highest constitutional import. http://www.uwyo.edu/law/_files/docs/wy%20law%20review/v14%20n1/barr-klein.pdf > Although for some, anonymous political speech is inherently negative Wow! major implications here, some questions to consider: * If anon speech is inherently negative, what's to stop DS from prohibiting boards like ours in the future? * Why is it ok to have cameras at every intersection but not ok to record public conversations? * Why is it ok to demand POTUS transparency about tax records, phone calls with world leaders? * When is transparency good? * When is it a weapon to use against a free citizenry?