End the War on Freedom

FROM MOUNTAIN MEDIA
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE DATED JUNE 9, 2000
THE LIBERTARIAN, By Vin Suprynowicz
Fines for political speech

It would be tempting to assume Nevada state Attorney General Frankie Sue Del Papa is merely going through the motions of "defending" the blatantly unconstitutional new state statute which bans the distribution of anonymous campaign fliers.

If it really bears repeating, many of the founding fathers wrote articles under assumed names -- essentially anonymously -- during the debates over the ratification of the U.S. Constitution. Yet handing out those very Federalist Papers in the form of anonymous fliers on Fremont Street today would be illegal under Nevada statute.

The notion that the men who wrote the Bill of Rights -- men like James Madison and Richard Henry Lee -- would have tolerated such suppression of speech and the free press, under their meaning of the First Amendment, is absurd.

As the U.S. Supreme Court ruled (in tossing out a similar Ohio statute in McIntyre vs. Ohio, 1986): "Under our Constitution, anonymous pamphleteering is not a pernicious, fraudulent practice, but an honorable tradition of advocacy and of dissent. Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority.

"It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation -- and their ideas from suppression -- at the hand of an intolerant society.

"The right to remain anonymous may be abused when it shields fraudulent conduct. But political speech by its nature will sometimes have unpalatable consequences, and, in general, our society accords greater weight to the value of free speech than to the dangers of its misuse."

Even if the Nevada statute -- now being tested in the case of an (initially) anonymous flier which correctly reported that Clark County Commissioner Lance Malone changed his vote on siting a neighborhood casino after receiving a pile of "campaign" loot from the sponsors -- were constitutional on its face, it then collapses under the weight of its own exceptions, anyway.

To be valid, any law must be equally applicable to all. So explain to us, Ms. Del Papa: If it's wrong for a corporation or group to send out an anonymous mailer, why does the statute grant an exemption to mailers paid for by a "single individual"?

Yes, that late amendment was added as a constitutional fig leaf, attempting to mimic court rulings which allow such a distinction in other matters. But isn't this like saying any one person has a right to attend the church of his or her choice ... but we can arrest and fine the whole congregation if we find two or more of the rascals inside at the same time?

And how is the state in its majesty to determine whether a mailer meets that "single author" requirement, unless the single individual who is thus allowed to remain anonymous ... is forced to step forward and prove he or she did it alone?

Isn't that sort of like saying we'll set the witch free if she sinks?

The law threatens a $5,000 fine against anyone who dares criticize a public official anonymously. Yet haven't there been plenty of occasions in our history when someone criticizing an officeholder had good reason to keep his identity secret? In the evil days of lynchings a century ago, how smart would it have been for a small group of upright black citizens to sign their names and addresses to a political mailer reporting on the racism and corruption of the local sheriff -- simultaneously mentioning that the sheriff happened to be the head of the local Ku Klux Klan?

The ACLU has taken the matter to court, seeking to have the statute thrown out as unconstitutional. Ms. Del Papa says she responded promptly last week in hopes of getting the matter resolved in time for the fall campaigns.

Well and good.

But Ms. Papa didn't stop there. No, she further explained that she intends to "vigorously defend the requirement that campaign material in Nevada must identify the person paying for the publication."

It's one thing to say folks are well advised to sign their names to their political opinions, since readers will naturally look with more skepticism on anonymous reports, and writers are more likely to be careful to stick to provable facts if they know they can be held personally accountable. That's all good advice.

But fining someone $5,000 for posting signs or handing out Xeroxed fliers asserting that those in government are unwise, unfair, or a bunch of crooks? Enforcing a one-size-fits-all statute which would even penalize whistle-blowers who fear losing their jobs if their names are revealed? Does that sound like the kind of free, wide open, political give-and-take the authors of our First Amendment had in mind?

---

Vin Suprynowicz is assistant editorial page editor of the Las Vegas Review-Journal. His book, "Send in the Waco Killers: Essays on the Freedom Movement, 1993-1998," is available at $24.95 postpaid by dialing 1-800-244-2224; or via web site http://www.thespiritof76.com/wacokillers.html.

---

Vin Suprynowicz, vin@lvrj.com

"The evils of tyranny are rarely seen but by him who resists it." -- John Hay, 1872

"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed -- and thus clamorous to be led to safety -- by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." -- H.L. Mencken

Add comment Edit post Add post