[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       cryptography
Subject:    Re: Is anonymous speech protected?
From:       Lee Tien <tien () well ! com>
Date:       1999-05-18 21:39:49
[Download RAW message or body]

I posted about this to a mailing list last week -- from a legal rag.

A federal judge in Indiana has ruled a Goshen city ban on masks
unconstitutional, saying it violates the rights of Ku Klux Klansmen
to express themselves and associate anonymously.  U.S. District Judge
Robert L. Miller issued the ruling May 4. It was made public by lawyers
on the case Monday. Last June, Goshen enacted an ordinance making it
illegal for anyone 18 or older to wear a mask, hood or other device in
public to conceal his or her identity, except for religious, safety or
medical reasons. Violators were subject to a $2,500 fine. City officials
hoped the measure would discourage the KKK from rallying there. The American
Knights argued that they consider themselves a religion, and their national
leader, the Rev. Jeffrey Berry, testified that members conceal themselves
because they are sinners in God's eyes. The group also said many members
wear the hoods to remain anonymous and reduce the risk of retaliation.

There is a well-established line of cases for anonymous speech and
association, though usually in a quasi-political context, like disclosure
laws.  The most recent Supreme Court case is McIntyre v. Ohio Elections
Comm'n.  I wrote an article about it a few years ago.   It cites some cases
up until 1996.  Who's Afraid of Anonymous Speech?  McIntyre and the
Internet, 75 Ore. L. Rev. 117 (1996).

Michael Froomkin briefly discusses the parallels between anti-mask laws and
anonymity in cyberspace at
http://www.law.miami.edu/~froomkin/articles/clipper1.htm#ToC54

There have been some failed challenges, as I recall, to "true name"
requirements in connection with "adult" movie production, but I don't have
cites handy.

Lee

At 4:30 PM -0700 5/17/99, Dave Del Torto wrote:
>Forgive me for lacking further specifics just now, but an anonymous
>lawyer friend tells me that the May 11, 1999 edition of the "San
>Francisco Daily Journal" reported that a federal district judge
>declared a (n unspecified) city's ordinance --forbidding the wearing
>of masks, hoods or any device in public to conceal one's identity
>(except for religious, safety or medical reasons)-- as being
>*unconstitutional* (!).
[snip]

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]