Printer Friendly

Citizens United, anonymous speech, and rights-violating.

Disclosure Laws

September 18, 2014

Censorship of certain types of political speech is a reality in Colorado, where it is illegal (for example) to publish an anonymous book or pamphlet that the government deems to be campaigning for or against a candidate or ballot measure, if as little as $200 is spent to produce it. (1)

The Founders who wrote and ratified the First Amendment--and who published many political advocacy documents anonymously--would be astounded and horrified that Colorado and other states censor anonymous political speech.

Although the Supreme Court's groundbreaking Citizens United decision threw out blanket prohibitions on groups of people (including corporations) spending money on political speech (see Steve Simpson's article), (2) government remained legally free to require speakers to report their identities and expenditures, thereby outlawing anonymous speech.

The latest legal battle regarding such censorship laws is taking place in Colorado, with Citizens United again on the front line. The group wishes to produce a film titled Rocky Mountain Heist to critique incumbent governor John Hickenlooper. Although obviously Citizens United does not wish to remain anonymous, it wishes for its donors who support the film to remain anonymous. Under Colorado law, Citizens United may produce the film only if it reports to the government the identities of its donors and its expenditures.

Such laws clearly violate people's right to freedom of speech. People have a moral right to speak about politics, to organize into groups to do so, to raise and spend money to do so, and to speak anonymously if they wish. Those who do not like anonymous speech are free to ignore it, criticize it, or request that the speakers reveal their identities and expenditures. But they have no moral right to stop anonymous speech. Freedom of speech is a requirement of human life, as it is the means by which we express our thoughts and thereby effect change in the intellectual realm. And the freedom to speak anonymously, as long as one does not incite rights violations thereby, is part of this requirement. Some ideas are controversial enough that attaching one's name to them can lead to serious problems. Anyone who doubts this might find clarity in discussing the matter with Tea Partiers, Salman Rushdie, or Theo van Gogh.

Forcing people to reveal their identities and expenditures to government in order to speak about politics creates numerous burdens, as I discovered firsthand when my coauthor of a paper on abortion rights--a paper opposing a Colorado ballot measure--was forced to file reports with the Colorado government in order to raise and spend funds for the project. Such reporting requirements are extremely complex and time-consuming. As one Colorado legislator who supports the campaign disclosure laws stated, often it "really does take a lawyer" to comply with the byzantine laws. (3) Disclosure laws may lead to private or even government retaliation against speakers. In addition, such laws enable opposition groups to file legal complaints alleging their opponents failed to fully comply with the intricacies of the law, thereby tying up their opponents' time and resources in legal proceedings.

Disclosure laws also lead to government acting as the arbiter of what constitutes "legitimate" news reporting. The Denver Post reports:
U.S. District Court Judge R. Brooke Jackson expressed skepticism as he
pressed Citizens United attorney Ted Olson... on his argument that
the nonprofit political organization deserved the same free-speech
protections afforded to newspapers and television stations. (4)


And a September 16 email from Hickenlooper's campaign states,
[T]his 'movie' is really just one big attack ad. And the worst part is
Citizens United is suing the state of Colorado so they can be treated
as a nonpartisan media outlet!


But it is not the government's (or the governor's) job to decide which organizations have a right to freedom of speech, or under what conditions they have that right. The government's sole proper role in this regard is to protect everyone's right to freedom of speech--especially when some people don't like that speech.

Let us hope that Citizens United is once again victorious in its defense of the vital right to freedom of speech.

Endnotes

(1.) "Colorado Constitution Article XXVII," Colorado Secretary of State, http://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/info_center/laws/ArticleXXVIII.html (accessed October 15, 2014).

(2.) Steve Simpson, "Citizens United and the Battle for Free Speech in America," The Objective Standard, Spring 2010, vol. 5, no. 1, https://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2010-spring/citizens-united/.

(3.) Ari Armstrong, "Morse: Complying with Campaign Laws 'Really Does Take a Lawyer,'" AriArmstrong.com, December 17, 2011, http://ariarmstrong.com/2011/12/morse-complying-with-campaign-laws-really-does-take-a-lawyer/.

(4.) John Frank, "Ted Olson Argues Citizens United Case in Denver Court," Denver Post, September 16, 2014, http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_26545467/ted-olson-argues-citizens-united-case-denver-court.
COPYRIGHT 2014 Glen Allen Press, LLC
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2014 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:Armstrong, Ari
Publication:The Objective Standard
Geographic Code:1U8CO
Date:Dec 22, 2014
Words:788
Previous Article:In honor of the U.S. Constitution and the men who created it.
Next Article:Fast-food workers seek government guns to back demands.
Topics:

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2019 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters