Comments on: “A right to speak anonymously?” https://www.overlawyered.com/2015/12/a-right-to-speak-anonymously/ Chronicling the high cost of our legal system Mon, 30 May 2016 15:04:01 +0000 hourly 1 By: David C https://www.overlawyered.com/2015/12/a-right-to-speak-anonymously/comment-page-1/#comment-330509 Mon, 07 Dec 2015 04:24:05 +0000 http://overlawyered.com/?p=56538#comment-330509 In the case of the NAACP, the court found that “Petitioner has made an uncontroverted showing that on past occasions revelation of the identity of its rank-and-file members has exposed these members to economic reprisal, loss of employment, threat of physical coercion, and other manifestations of public hostility.” In the current case, the 9th Circuit found that “Here, CCP has not shown any “actual burden” on its freedom of association.”

But even today, we live in a world where the CEO of Mozilla was forced to step down because he supported a referendum – and that was in California, one of the states seeking these lists. 2015 California is not exactly 1958 Alabama, but I think this is enough to prove that retaliation for supporting an activist organization is not unlikely, and that organizations should therefore not be forced to provide membership or donor lists without a good reason.

It only does limited good to protect a donor list *after* a particular organization experiences actual retaliation, and it seems bizarre to say that some organizations have to provide a yearly list but some don’t because they’ve received threats.

]]> By: Fox2! https://www.overlawyered.com/2015/12/a-right-to-speak-anonymously/comment-page-1/#comment-330483 Sat, 05 Dec 2015 15:13:19 +0000 http://overlawyered.com/?p=56538#comment-330483 Wasn’t this issue settled 50 years ago, when the USSC ruled that Mississippi couldn’t demand the NAACP supply the state a list of their members and supporters? Or does this only go one way?

]]>