From: nobody@shell.portal.com
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: da158526472b2bb0179d0eb169af81681b60367442912579612c9b0d2e08ce9f
Message ID: <199402240645.WAA06221@jobe.shell.portal.com>
Reply To: N/A
UTC Datetime: 1994-02-24 06:44:45 UTC
Raw Date: Wed, 23 Feb 94 22:44:45 PST
From: nobody@shell.portal.com
Date: Wed, 23 Feb 94 22:44:45 PST
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Supreme Court on Anonymity
Message-ID: <199402240645.WAA06221@jobe.shell.portal.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
- From today's (February 23) New York Times (quoted without permission):
By Linda Greenhouse
WASHINGTON, Feb. 22: The Supreme Court agreed today to decide whether
states can ban the distribution of anonymous campaign literature.
The case is an appeal by an Ohio woman who was fined under the state's
election law for distributing leaflets, signed only by "concerned parents
and taxpayers," urging the defeat of a local tax referendum. At stake is
the constitutional balance between the free speech rights protected under
the First Amendment and a state's interest in guarding against election
fraud.
Half of the states, including Connecticut and New Jersey, have laws
similar to Ohio's. While the Supreme court has never discussed anonymous
leaflets in the context of election laws, it did rule in 1960 that the
organizers of a consumer boycott directed at racially biased mechants could
not be required to identify themselves on their literature. Historically,
persecuted or unpopular groups have "been able to criticized oppressive
practices and laws either anonymously or not at all," the court said in
that decision, Talley v. California.
On the other hand, the Court has granted the states more latitude to
restrict speech as part of election regulations, recently upholding bans on
write-in voting and on electioneering near polling places. The Ohio Supreme
Court, in ruling last year to uphold the ban on anonymous leaflets, said
the state law was consistent with the Supreme Court's view that speech
could be limited to deter voter fraud.
Interesting, eh?
faust's dog
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.3a
iQBpAgUBLWxKQIp26HwU0zr9AQGxfQKZAec+cnCSOHjLSsQjJxQbd1u5IRNw3/Jr
H3IltqoypEPRa1H7LYoVQ7RNmiGrcL2730JmABCS3C56k5x/T/IZBeyFtCGussso
vscFrB2NGxRCH8Ho
=UPD9
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Return to February 1994
Return to “nobody@shell.portal.com”
1994-02-24 (Wed, 23 Feb 94 22:44:45 PST) - Supreme Court on Anonymity - nobody@shell.portal.com