From: greg@ideath.goldenbear.com (Greg Broiles)
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 94 17:47:09 PDT
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Anonymity and the US Supreme Court
Message-ID: <m0pqsop-0001W7C@ideath.goldenbear.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----


Adam Lake's question about the legality of pseudonyms sent me trolling
about Westlaw today, in search of some case law supporting the rule I
learned (somewhere .. sigh.) - that pseudonyms are OK as long as there's
no intent to defraud.

No luck there yet, but I did find an interesting passage in an opinion
which found a LA city ordinance void which required that any handbill
have upon it the "true name and address" of the persons responsible for it.

"Anonymous pamphlets, leaflets, brochures and even books have played an
important role in the progress of mankind. Persecuted groups and sects
from time to time throughout history have been able to criticize oppressive
practices and laws either anonymously or not at all." 

It later says "Even the Federalist Papers, written in favor of the adoption
of our Constitution, were published under fictitious names. It is plain that
anonymity has sometimes been assumed for the most constructive purposes."

Cite is _Talley v. State of California_, 362 U.S. 60, 64-65, 80 S.Ct. 536,
538-539 (1960).  


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.3a

iQCVAgUBLas8qH3YhjZY3fMNAQGHogP+KZKWULNE7wftUNKGVJmdaJ4zpjaVywfS
IQqpu0duzbORLyKVIV4ZtAGrAnItMV/ZDNwg2KyDoHasUUNKQeBMKYXp+4KpxFL2
flreCRCe/ZqKQ4+EJzNQXT4HtQglbDO3Tl3aM411urnhFLhTCorrbTW4NChhd3S8
6TIdKCFnD4Q=
=Bp6d
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----