Comment Constitutionally Protected! Re:that is ridiculous (Score 1) 396
Great point! AFAIK, this would be a First Amendment issue, since the domain name itself could _easily_ be considered a form of speech (eg. JerryFallwellSucksEggs.com for instance)
In fact, the Supreme Court has stated "Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority." [McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission (93-986), 514 U.S. 334 (1995)] and later said "As a matter of constitutional tradition, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we presume that governmental regulation of the content of speech is more likely to interfere with the free exchange of ideas than to encourage it. The interest in encouraging freedom of expression in a democratic society outweighs any theoretical but unproven benefit of censorship." [Reno v. ACLU (96-511), 521 U.S. 844 (1997)]
I'm certainly going to write to all of my legislative "leaders" and tell them this information, and hopefully let them know that I, for one, am not happy with Big Business running our nation...
In fact, the Supreme Court has stated "Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority." [McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission (93-986), 514 U.S. 334 (1995)] and later said "As a matter of constitutional tradition, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we presume that governmental regulation of the content of speech is more likely to interfere with the free exchange of ideas than to encourage it. The interest in encouraging freedom of expression in a democratic society outweighs any theoretical but unproven benefit of censorship." [Reno v. ACLU (96-511), 521 U.S. 844 (1997)]
I'm certainly going to write to all of my legislative "leaders" and tell them this information, and hopefully let them know that I, for one, am not happy with Big Business running our nation...
