deleted by creator

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

Then where is the government here? Your reading of the case law makes a claim that protection of anonymity extends to private citizen against private citizen. That is not the case. It is not findable in the case law. You are just plain wrong here.

Just to take this to its logical conclusion, because this is the actual case with the baker. I can say anything I want to gay people and by your logic should be protected. It is only when, after they find out about my beliefs (and make a point to try to use my services), the baker should be forced make the cake or decline their business that it becomes distasteful?

I would have found hate speech distasteful before that but it seems that is just me.

Also, and your logic is pretty pretzeled so I am trying to follow it to its conclusion. Because you agree with the speech, because you believe a bunch of Harvard students, who made a public statement and therefore made themselves targets of publicity, are oppressed, then their identities should be protected. But only because you believe their speech is justice. If it was unjust they should be hauled to the town square?

That is some interesting logic.

deleted by creator

I see, if it is speech you agree with and believe that there should be no punishment, then it is find to be anonymous. Is the reverse true, if this was an anti-Arab hate group, would you call for such protection? I doubt it. You would call for them to be unmasked and punished.

Also it is a logical fallacy that to demand the to take greater risk in the name of a cause just to make a valid point. As one who seems as concerned with logic yourself, you should know that.

In the end, I know where your disingenuous argument comes from. You are a rules for thee and not for me kind of person.

You are making my point for me. The founding fathers published the federalist papers for fear of being dismissed because they were at the Philadelphia convention and there was a worry that the paper would be seen as self serving and do damage to their reputations and thereby their income. Their concern was an economic one.

Also when a baker hung a sign refusing to make wedding cakes it most certainly was news. It also caused him great economic harm. As it should.

I get the current fashion of political tribalism dictates that one must defend their side even when it does something awful or ridiculous. However, when you say vile things either on the left or the right you should face the consequences.

Then where is the government here? Your reading of the case law makes a claim that protection of anonymity extends to private citizen against private citizen. That is not the case. It is not findable in the case law. You are just plain wrong here.

If it is not objectionable and there should be no punishment as you say, then there should be no issues with them signing there names to their statement. Correct?

They do not sign their names because they fear economic retribution. So, clearly, you are purposefully misreading my comment or you a troll. Either way own your behavior.

You miss the point of the cases. A mayor, a police department, or a board of elections cannot force you to identify yourself online either via law or the courts.

Whether you like it or not it is not illegal for another private citizen to dox you.

Let me start with where we agree. There are no good guys in this conflict.

Violence is response to speech is always wrong. Your right to swing your arms ends just where the other man’s nose begins.

While I do not think anyone is in actual danger at the Harvard campus, if there was a truly credible threat, a person should be protected.

On to where we likely disagree. Issuing a statement that Israel is wholly to blame for this situation the day of a massacre of 1300 civilians, many woman, children, and the elderly, is reprehensible. If a student felt justified in making that statement, they should accept the economic consequences that come with it.

My personal feeling is that while Israel was initially justified in securing their border and trying to recover the woman, children, and elderly Hamas took hostage, that the situation is devolving into collective punishment and a humanitarian crisis.

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

You skip a key point, the first amendment is protection from the government. The case you reference is specifically in reference to government persecution.

Where is the government in this case? You do not have a general first amendment right to anonymity.

So you think speech should be consequence free? We can literally say whatever we want and there should be no consequences?

So yelling fire in a crowded theater is cool with you?

Just as there is no requirement that it be consequence free.

But to further your point. There is no right to anonymity. There is no requirement for what you say morally or ethically.

I have reread the article several times. No one in it advocates for violence against the authors of the letter. They do advocate for them losing jobs and other economic advantages. So not sure where you are even getting this from.

But to explore your ideology a little further. Do you advocate the same thing for Jewish people who support Israel? My guess is you don’t. Do you condemn Hamas for their “day of rage” proclamation, an actual call to violence?

I am curious for your answer. My guess is all of a sudden your position is more nuanced.