Date: Thu, 7 May 2009 09:52:24 -0400
From: Sherri
Subject: RE: Chatham Chatlist #3413
[QUOTE] …
Anonymous authors historically have made contributions to the “progress of
mankind”. There are benign reasons that an author may choose to remain
anonymous: fear of retaliation or reprisal, the desire to avoid social
ostracism, the wish to protect privacy, or the fear that the audience’s
biases will distort the meaning of the work.
“Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority” without which
public discourse would certainly suffer.
An author’s decision to remain anonymous is an exercise of autonomy over
choice of content, and “an author generally is free to decide whether or not
to disclose his or her true identity.” The decision to remain anonymous is
an editorial judgment like any other, which makes choosing to omit one’s
name no different than choosing to omit an opposing viewpoint.
Speakers may use the shield of anonymity for a variety of purposes, only
some of which may be consistent with the public good; at the same time,
audiences may not accord anonymous speech as much value as attributed
speech.
“The First Amendment, as interpreted by the United States Supreme Court,
confers upon authors a right to speak anonymously or pseudonymously, even
when this right interferes with audiences’ attempts to decode their
messages.”
From the Lidsky and Cotter paper –
Judge Learned Hand once famously wrote that “the First Amendment . . .
presupposes that right conclusions are more likely to be gathered out of a
multitude of tongues, than through any kind of authoritative selection. To
many this is,
and always will be, folly; but we have staked upon it our all.” As Judge
Hand recognized, democracy rests on our faith
in citizens’ ability to decide for themselves where truth lies in public
discourse.[QUOTE]
——————————
Thank you for upholding the right that others may post anonymously.
The Woods of Chatham
Sherri