The 1960 case Talley v California , was the first major win for anonymous speech advocates. Mr.Talley was arrested for distributing a handbill that was calling for a boycott of certain businesses in the area because the businesses did not hire minorities. Talley was found guilty of violating the Los Angeles county ordinance that stated:
"No person shall distribute any hand-bill in any place under any circumstances, which does not have printed on the cover, or the face thereof, the name and address of the following: "(a) The person who printed, wrote, compiled or manufactured the same. "(b) The person who caused the same to be distributed; provided, however, that in the case of a fictitious person or club, in addition to such fictitious name, the true names and addresses of the owners, managers or agents of the person sponsoring said hand-bill shall also appear thereon."He was fined $10 for the offense. In response, he petitioned to the federal Supreme Court under the 14th amendment, the amendment that allows state laws to be judged by the federal Supreme Court. In the end, the Los Angeles law that did not allow anonymous distribution of handbills was repealed. In California, the people are allowed to write and publish whatever speech they want to and there are no repercussions if the speech is anonymous.
Justice Black reason for repealing the Los Angeles Ordinance was:
"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."Justice Black argues that there is a history of anonymous pamphlets which contribute to the well-being of mankind. The ordinance was also repealed because the arguments of the judge fall back on the basis of our legal system, that one is presumed innocent until proven guilty. One can not argue that if we allow someone to write an anonymous pamphlet that they will necessarily commit fraud, false advertising or libel.
However, the decision was not unanimous.
Justice Clark dissents because:
- "the ordinance was adopted for the purpose of preventing "fraud, false advertising and libel.
- Talley or any group sponsoring him would not suffer "economic reprisal, loss of employment, threat of physical coercion [or] other manifestations of public hostility."
- The ordinance makes for the responsibility in writing that is present in public utterance.
- I stand second to none in supporting Talley's right of free speech -- but not his freedom of anonymity. The constitution says nothing about freedom of anonymous speech.
In a more recent case McIntire v Ohio Election Board , Mrs. McIntyre was fined $100 dollars for distributing anonymous election materials against a levy tax. In the case the Ohio Election commission vs McIntyre, the federal supreme court overturned the fine because:
- The decision in favor of anonymity may be motivated by fear of economic or official retaliation, by concern about social ostracism, or merely by a desire to preserve as much of one's privacy as possible.
- More-over, in the case of a handbill written by a private citizen who is not known to the recipient, the name and address of the author adds little, if anything, to the reader's ability to evaluate the document's message.
- Thus, Ohio's informational interest is plainly insufficient to support the constitutionality of its disclosure require-ment.
- Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority.
Once again there was dissent in the decision:
The final watershed case on this topic is NAACP v Alabama . The issue was whether the NAACP had to give a list of its members to the State of Alabama before it could operate there. In the end, the NAACP was not required to give a list of its members because:
- The existence of a generalized right of anonymity in speech was rejected by this Court in Lewis Publishing Co. v. Morgan, 229 U. S. 288 (1913), which held that newspapers desiring the privilege of second class postage could be required to provide to the Postmaster General, and to publish, a statement of the names and addresses of their editors, publishers, business managers and owners. We rejected the argument that the First Amendment forbade the requirement of such disclosure.
- I am sure, however, that (1) a person who is required to put his name to a document is much less likely to lie than one who can lie anony-mously,
- (2) the distributor of a leaflet which is unlawful because it is anonymous runs much more risk of immediate detection and punishment than the distrib- utor of a leaflet which is unlawful because it is false.
- It facilitates wrong by eliminating accountability, which is ordinarily the very purpose of the anonymity. There are of course excep-tions, and where anonymity is needed to avoid -threats, harassment, or reprisals- the First Amendment will require an exemption from the Ohio law.
"We hold that the immunity from state scrutiny of membership lists which the Association claims on behalf of its members is here so related to the right of the members to pursue their lawful private interests privately and to associate freely with others in so doing as to come within the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment."This was a huge victory for anonymous advocates because people could privately associate themselves with any group they pleased.
further reading
proceed to technology