Keith Rollman jumped into the discussion of the Maine Ethics Commission decision concerning an anonymous political web site with an articulate and reasoned defense of his “Atomic Monkey“.
You probably missed it if you’re not one who prowls the discussions, and it’s worth giving wider attention. His full comment is reprinted below.
OK, I’ll bite.
Actually, there’s some significant differences. The authors of the political website you mention are still anonymous, maintained publishing throughout the campaign and their opponent lost.
To put this into perspective, this case involves a campaign ethics commission in Maine fining some political web blog $200. In their opinion the web blog in question skirted the legal definition of a “contribution” and should have borne a political disclaimer.
If the still anonymous blogger choses to take this to court on constitutional grounds I am confident he will win. Here’s why:
1.The first amendment to the constitution protects political speech, and more specifically, anonymous political speech. I am willing to bet that proven constitutional law, as defined by the U.S. Supreme Court, will eventually trump a local ethic board. (But, how far do you fight a $200 fine?)
2.The particular campaign ethics board that issued this fine has been repremanded by the state courts before for infringing on free speech.
3.This action appears to be brought by the losing candidate’s lawyer, so it could be construed as exactly the type of political retribution that the constitution was seeking to protect against.
4.The internet has changed the rules and wide distribution of material can be achieved, virally, at zero cost. All the old rules, including Maine’s statue 21-A are dependent on an “expenditure” on behalf of a candidate. Maine 21-A further defines this as over $100. And, the material, must advocate the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate. In Hawaii this has been interpreted as direct “vote for” or “vote against” statements, not information or issue messages. “In kind contributions” are defined by Maine’s 21-A even more archaicly as “printed material.”So, even without examining constitution protections, the individuals in Maine didn’t meet the threshold for 21-A as written. No expenditure, as defined by Maine law, was made.
If the content of the site is, or was relevant; what did it really say?
The plaintiff’s lawyer laments the content of the offending website: “The Web site was vicious,” said Richard Spencer. “It lied about the identity of its sponsors and it contained gross distortions and misrepresentations about Eliot Cutler.”
This sounds like a standard rebuttal smoke screen.
More alarmingly, Ian Lind picks up this rhetoric and reports it as fact: “an anonymous web site set up to viciously attack a candidate for governor…”
Ian, did you see the site and report on its tone and content first hand or merely parrot the opponents colorful rebuttal? Now THAT does sound familiar.
Ian, Atomic Monkey was different in many ways. First of all it was voluntarily removed from the web. Second, I identified myself to the media voluntarily (the disclosure to Derrick DePledge was OK’d by me – I even did an interview with KITV). And Third, AM’s content fell under disproportionate and inaccurate criticism only AFTER the website was down.
I haven’t seen the Maine website, but I can vouch for the accuracy of and attribution for any statements, presented as fact, made on Atomic Monkey.
Discover more from i L i n d
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
You go, Keith Rollman, with your self-righteous, first amendment loving, I’m so sweet and innocent because I “took down my site voluntarily” (as if anyone believes that) blah blah blither blather. The thing you don’t seem to realize is that nobody cares about any of that anymore. You managed to distinguish yourself as the most hateful of a relatively small cadre of slightly-less hateful characters that ruined a potentially successful campaign for a whole bunch of totally not hateful people who believed in the former mayor. Atomic Monkey was kind of funny but oh. so. stupid. on behalf of your former boss. Thanks for listening. merry christmas!
“Ian, Atomic Monkey was different in many ways. First of all it was voluntarily removed from the web. Second, I identified myself to the media voluntarily (the disclosure to Derrick DePledge was OK’d by me – I even did an interview with KITV). And Third, AM’s content fell under disproportionate and inaccurate criticism only AFTER the website was down.”
All three of these points are fairly meaningless. It was voluntarily removed because your boss told you to. You disclosed your identity because, this being Hawaii, you weren’t going to be able to keep it secret anyway. And the third point just means that you (or Mufi) yanked the website quickly.
Frankly, I’m not sure why you even decided to engage Ian on this. I imagine that most people have moved on to examining the Abercrombie administration and its opening moves. Your post reminds us all that Atomic Monkey was one of the nails in the coffin of the Hanneman campaign.
I’m glad you posted this. It’s fascinating.
Woo Woo, you are entitled to your opinions and theories too.
I guess my point is that political satire is protected free speech, and that some supporters of the politicians who are mocked will takc offense and seek to suppress the constitutional rights of those who engage in it.
Ian brought it up.
Keith’s right. I brought it up.
Merry Christmas to all. May we have a happy new year to go with our “new day.”
Thanks, Keith. Greetings back to you as well.
I appreciate your willingness to stand up for the First Amendment when it’s not the most popular position around.
In the heat of things, we can lose track of how important that is.
I find this very interesting as a lawyer from Texas has now threatened to sue me for content that was on my blog.
http://damontucker.com/2010/12/23/i-guess-im-gonna-get-sued-or-something-texas-attorney-contacts-me-regarding-my-blog/
I’m not voluntarily taking it down and I want to see just what this lawyer thinks I have allegedly done to harm his client… other then tell the truth on my blog.
I don’t seem to recall that Mr. Rollman’s professional qualifications inlcude a law degree so I would not put too much stock in his pronouncements about what the First Amendment does and does not protect.
Specifically, as it relates to anonymity, SCOTUS ruled this fall that those who sign a petition to place a qustion on the ballot do not have the right to remain anonymous. While that case is not directly on point when it comes to anonymous political blogging (on which issue no case has been decided, to my knowledge), it does suggest that free speech is not entirely free. Consistent with SCOTUS’ decision in Citizens United that voided campaign contribution limits on US “citizens” (including corporations) but left disclosure requirements intact, it would appear that this court favors a free market place of ideas, provided that the marketer of a particular idea is willing to be identified and therefore held accountable for them.
The Supreme Court has ruled repeatedly that the right to anonymous free speech is protected by the First Amendment. A much-cited 1995 Supreme Court ruling in McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission reads:
“Protections for anonymous speech are vital to democratic discourse. Allowing dissenters to shield their identities frees them to express critical, minority views . . . 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 . . . at the hand of an intolerant society.”