... the barage of posts talking about constitional rights, the Bush Administration and, of course, the 569 jokes about the "terrorists already winnning". But seriously, does anyone thing they have an absolute Constitional Right to anonymity when they use the internet or check out books in the library?
I know that even posing the question is going to be seriously unpopular, but it should be asked.
Well now you have a point there though. Remeber, free speech et al was written in a time when there wasn't true anonmity. If you spoke or said something, you had every right to say it, but people could also identify you. Even things like newpapers and pamphlets could be tracked back to you. Anonmity and Freedom are not one in the same.
>Remeber, free speech et al was written in a time when there wasn't true anonmity
Yes there was. Even more than there is now. Anyone could make up a bunch of fliers and post them all over town in the middle of the night and there would be no way of knowing who did it. It's not like they could even check them for fingerprints...
Thomas Paine's Common Sense, commonly regarded as one of the most influential writings of its time, was first published anonymously. The publisher knew who the author was, and people of his time found out if they really wanted to, but Paine didn't claim any credit up front.
I've been reading it lately, as part of a compiled volume of Paine's best writings. I find it really interesting to read some of the thoughts that were influential in the forming of my government. And, in the process, I'm learning a few things about the history of British government that I didn't know, either....
I've been taking my time reading through it, though. Some very deep words to think about. So it's probably a good thing I didn't borrow this book from the library.
And if they wanted to put some in the next town, they went to their corner Kinko's?
There was no anonymity, no over-educated under-worked "Anonymous Cowards" when your Constitutional rights were framed. You had a gripe, you got up on your soapbox in the Town Square and you made it, loud and clear. The Founding Fathers wanted to make sure you couldn't be legally shot or carried off later that night, so they protected your right to speak freely. The Constitution does not, was not meant to, protect your anonymity as you take snivelling globally distributed pot shots at the government or corporations or the media or soccer Moms or Britney Spears all from the safety of a firewalled computer terminal on your employer's time.
Want to really make a difference, be heard, get your point across? Find a large group of like-minded people and have a rally. The Founding Fathers knew that took guts, too (it was the age of Napolean's "whiffs of grapeshot," after all), and so they protected your Right to Assemble. In public, where people live, not in a virtual "chatroom," or (saints and martyrs preserve us!) a "Blog."
Got something to say? That's great, let's hear it. But be prepared to take personal responsibility for it. I may not agree with you, but I'll defend to the death your freedom to say it. But just have the balls to own up to your words, and don't expect to hide behind the Internet or your Mom.
In short, the Founding Fathers did not work to protect your right to be an Anonymous Coward... maybe because they knew that cowards already die a thousand deaths and there was not much anybody could do to improve their lot.
All this is not to say that I don't respect your privacy, or respect others who respect their privacy. It's just not a God-given or Constitutional right, then or now.
PLEASE! Mod the parent up! So few people understand the meaning of the 9th Amendment, and as such this is a comment that is very valuable to this -- and any -- discussion of our rights!
Yep. Completely anonymously. How scandalous! As one of the other posters pointed out, even whole books could be published anonymously. How did the country ever survive?!?
>There was no anonymity, no over-educated under-worked "Anonymous Cowards" when your Constitutional rights were framed. You had a gripe, you got up on your soapbox in the Town Square and you made it, loud and clear.
You could even ride your horse to another town and get up on a soapbox there, and guess what - nobody knew you! That's right, you were anonymous and were allowed to speak!
>The Founding Fathers wanted to make sure you couldn't be legally shot or carried off later that night, so they protected your right to speak freely....and anonymously.
>The Constitution does not, was not meant to, protect your anonymity as you take snivelling globally distributed pot shots at the government or corporations or the media or soccer Moms or Britney Spears all from the safety of a firewalled computer terminal on your employer's time.
Of course not. They didn't have any concept of firewalls or Britney Spears. They didn't need to spell out the right to be anonymous because everyone already was effectively anonymous. They had no way of knowing that some day the government would have to power to track everything you do, and would have been horrified at the idea.
On the other hand, if you got up on your soap box in the middle of the street, or you gave pamphlets to people on the street or went to the printer to get something printed up, you could be identified by site. So if you ran arround screaming anarchy and death to people who didn't believe in your ways, people saw you and identified you, and even if you had no name, your reputation could precede you. Want your anonmity? Go save up the cash for soem plastic surgery and go chuck your SS card and your drivers licence, and all your credit cards etc. Sure you have to give up a lot, but so did people who wanted to be anonymous back then. As I see it, everything in life is a sort of double edged sword, the easier it becomes to be anonymous (now you can print a whole series of propaganda and papers from your home and distribute it all over without anyone having seen your face) the easier it becomes to track and trace you. In the end it all balances out.
You had a gripe, you got up on your soapbox in the Town Square and you made it, loud and clear.
Unfortunately, today's soapbox is The Mall, and it's a privately owned space. They can and do regulate what sort of speech/conduct is permitted, and speaking your mind in the Food Court is not allowed.
What should be done is that our local leaders should establish some sort of public use rights for large private establishments, as a way to mitigate their impact. The mall, for example, probably causes traffic problems for the nearby community, and it probably had to get some zoning easements to be built in the first place.
Unfortunately, half the people running our local government are also the people building the mall. They're not participating in local government for the betterment of the citizenry...well they are in the sense that they believe that our interests are best served by acquiescing to whatever the developers want. This just happens to coincide with their interests...
Look at how little participation there is in our local government. Presidential elections get the highest voter turnout, but really so many more tangible things are happening at the local level. The last non-presidential primary I voted in had a turnout of like 11%, and this in civic-minded Seattle.
Democracy doesn't actually work, at least not when monied interests are the only ones who bother to participate. I wonder why so many people claim it's the best form of government? Give me a benevolent despot any day. Either that, or make voting mandatory, with a fine if you don't vote. Just put a "none" box on the ballot for those who don't want to vote.
Anyone could make up a bunch of fliers and post them all over town in the middle of the night and there would be no way of knowing who did it.
Given that cities had maybe a handful of printing presses, the first thing the authorities would do is visit the pressmen and try to find out who came in and ordered 1,000 copies of a pamphlet printed up.
Yes there was. Even more than there is now. Anyone could make up a bunch of fliers and post them all over town in the middle of the night and there would be no way of knowing who did it.
"Anyone" with access to printing press, you mean. And in Colonial America that's not a huge number of people. It's not like everyone had a laser printer at their house.
I can already see ... (Score:5, Insightful)
... the barage of posts talking about constitional rights, the Bush Administration and, of course, the 569 jokes about the "terrorists already winnning". But seriously, does anyone thing they have an absolute Constitional Right to anonymity when they use the internet or check out books in the library?
I know that even posing the question is going to be seriously unpopular, but it should be asked.
Re:I can already see ... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:I can already see ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes there was. Even more than there is now. Anyone could make up a bunch of fliers and post them all over town in the middle of the night and there would be no way of knowing who did it. It's not like they could even check them for fingerprints...
Re:I can already see ... (Score:5, Interesting)
I've been reading it lately, as part of a compiled volume of Paine's best writings. I find it really interesting to read some of the thoughts that were influential in the forming of my government. And, in the process, I'm learning a few things about the history of British government that I didn't know, either....
I've been taking my time reading through it, though. Some very deep words to think about. So it's probably a good thing I didn't borrow this book from the library.
Re:I can already see ... (Score:2)
Re: download commonsense here.... (Score:1)
Re:I can already see ... (Score:2, Interesting)
The Rascals! The... The Anarchists!!
And if they wanted to put some in the next town, they went to their corner Kinko's?
There was no anonymity, no over-educated under-worked "Anonymous Cowards" when your Constitutional rights were framed. You had a gripe, you got up on your soapbox in the Town Square and you made it, loud and clear. The Founding Fathers wanted to make sure you couldn't be legally shot or carried off later that night, so they protected your right to speak freely. The Constitution does not, was not meant to, protect your anonymity as you take snivelling globally distributed pot shots at the government or corporations or the media or soccer Moms or Britney Spears all from the safety of a firewalled computer terminal on your employer's time.
Want to really make a difference, be heard, get your point across? Find a large group of like-minded people and have a rally. The Founding Fathers knew that took guts, too (it was the age of Napolean's "whiffs of grapeshot," after all), and so they protected your Right to Assemble. In public, where people live, not in a virtual "chatroom," or (saints and martyrs preserve us!) a "Blog."
Got something to say? That's great, let's hear it. But be prepared to take personal responsibility for it. I may not agree with you, but I'll defend to the death your freedom to say it. But just have the balls to own up to your words, and don't expect to hide behind the Internet or your Mom.
In short, the Founding Fathers did not work to protect your right to be an Anonymous Coward... maybe because they knew that cowards already die a thousand deaths and there was not much anybody could do to improve their lot.
All this is not to say that I don't respect your privacy, or respect others who respect their privacy. It's just not a God-given or Constitutional right, then or now.
MOD PARENT UP! (Score:2)
Re:I can already see ... (Score:4, Interesting)
Yep. Completely anonymously. How scandalous! As one of the other posters pointed out, even whole books could be published anonymously. How did the country ever survive?!?
>There was no anonymity, no over-educated under-worked "Anonymous Cowards" when your Constitutional rights were framed. You had a gripe, you got up on your soapbox in the Town Square and you made it, loud and clear.
You could even ride your horse to another town and get up on a soapbox there, and guess what - nobody knew you! That's right, you were anonymous and were allowed to speak!
>The Founding Fathers wanted to make sure you couldn't be legally shot or carried off later that night, so they protected your right to speak freely.
>The Constitution does not, was not meant to, protect your anonymity as you take snivelling globally distributed pot shots at the government or corporations or the media or soccer Moms or Britney Spears all from the safety of a firewalled computer terminal on your employer's time.
Of course not. They didn't have any concept of firewalls or Britney Spears. They didn't need to spell out the right to be anonymous because everyone already was effectively anonymous. They had no way of knowing that some day the government would have to power to track everything you do, and would have been horrified at the idea.
Re:I can already see ... (Score:1)
Re:I can already see ... (Score:2)
Re:I can already see ... (Score:2)
Unfortunately, today's soapbox is The Mall, and it's a privately owned space. They can and do regulate what sort of speech/conduct is permitted, and speaking your mind in the Food Court is not allowed.
What should be done is that our local leaders should establish some sort of public use rights for large private establishments, as a way to mitigate their impact. The mall, for example, probably causes traffic problems for the nearby community, and it probably had to get some zoning easements to be built in the first place.
Unfortunately, half the people running our local government are also the people building the mall. They're not participating in local government for the betterment of the citizenry...well they are in the sense that they believe that our interests are best served by acquiescing to whatever the developers want. This just happens to coincide with their interests...
Look at how little participation there is in our local government. Presidential elections get the highest voter turnout, but really so many more tangible things are happening at the local level. The last non-presidential primary I voted in had a turnout of like 11%, and this in civic-minded Seattle.
Democracy doesn't actually work, at least not when monied interests are the only ones who bother to participate. I wonder why so many people claim it's the best form of government? Give me a benevolent despot any day. Either that, or make voting mandatory, with a fine if you don't vote. Just put a "none" box on the ballot for those who don't want to vote.
Re:I can already see ... (Score:2)
them all over town in the middle of the night and there would be no way of knowing who did it.
Given that cities had maybe a handful of printing presses, the first thing the authorities would do is visit the pressmen and try to find out who came in and ordered 1,000 copies of a pamphlet printed up.
Not so different from today.
Re:I can already see ... (Score:2)
"Anyone" with access to printing press, you mean. And in Colonial America that's not a huge number of people. It's not like everyone had a laser printer at their house.
Re:I can already see ... (Score:1)
You`ve really been keeping up with forensics, haven't you. Heard of DNA?
Re:I can already see ... (Score:1)