Anonymous speech is as old as graffiti — and as new as the views about certain Gilbert candidates’ religious beliefs found in a mailer sent by an anonymous group calling itself Concerned Arizona Taxpayers.
Anonymous political speech for corporate entities such as this group was upheld in 2010 by the U.S. Supreme Court in a landmark case called Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission.
I’m conflicted about this. I think the content of what was said — to vote for or against someone based on their religious beliefs — has no reasonable place in politics. But even during weeks like this past one — in which reading local media reports about these unknown folks’ comments had me upset — I recognize that good arguments exist both for and against anonymous speech.
For example, look at the Arizona Constitution’s guarantee of free speech in our state, found in Article II, Section 6: “Every person may freely speak, write and publish on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that right.”
Is saying someone’s religious membership should deny them public office “abuse” of the right of free speech? No. Even something of this nature, as insulting as it is, likely would be found by the courts as legally protected opinion. That is, you could make such comments so long as they are not composed of “fighting words” that could provoke someone to an immediate violent reaction.
History records many of our nation’s Founding Fathers hiding their profound views on liberty behind false identities because the British king called such criticism treason, punishable by death.
Yet few of us today really are in such a life-threatening position, although news website reader comments I’ve read across the Internet include those from people who say they don’t identify themselves with their real names because they fear that their bosses might discipline or fire them. Or they fear receiving harassing phone calls or mail.
That’s a red herring. When it comes down to it, most bosses aren’t concerned about the political views of their employees so long as they don’t involve the specific interests of the company. I can’t see the vitriolic back-and-forth over President Barack Obama’s birth certificate or the ramifications of Senate Bill 1070, for example, to involve the financial balance sheets of most businesses.
If your opinion is not about your workplace at all, but about politics or social policy — which it usually is — the “my boss will fire me” argument is pretty weak. I’ll venture to guess that most of these people didn’t even ask their bosses about the practice of making online comments. It’s far easier to come up with a clever screen name and claim your boss is an ogre.
As for phone calls and mail, anything that’s truly harassing or threatening is illegal and police should be contacted in the event that happens. I’m not here to advocate any threatening or violent acts. But take it from a guy who’s spent many years with his name, face and contact information in tens of thousands of newspapers every week:
Affording somebody the right and opportunity to simply disagree with you — even strongly — well, that’s called being responsible for your views. The mere desire to not wish to be bothered by someone who’s not your ideological buddy is no justification for anonymity. Heck, you bothered them first.
Which brings us back to this Gilbert mailer.
I’d like to see Concerned Arizona Taxpayers step forward and identify themselves. I don’t think they will, because they probably know that while identifying oneself often helps lend legitimacy to one’s views, their views wouldn’t be legitimized simply because they introduced themselves.
One well-known theory about the First Amendment is that the marketplace of ideas settles most of these matters on their own. That is, since most people don’t believe as the Concerned Arizona Taxpayers do, they aren’t going to take their ballot advice. Perhaps that is what will happen here. We can only hope.
But this mailer reminds us that our system of government calls for informed, fair-minded citizens who are called upon to respond to wrongs and to resist extreme points of view, rather than live in a climate of ignorance that only fosters more such opinions.
And so we are called upon to consider such views as painful and disagreeable to hear but allowable, just to remind us of what is out there, and of what to most of us should remain, well, out there.
• Read Tribune contributing columnist Mark J. Scarp’s opinions here on Sundays. Watch his “On the Mark” video commentaries at eastvalleytribune.com. Reach him at mscarp1@cox.net.
Read Mark J. Scarp’s opinions here on Sundays. Watch his video commentaries at eastvalleytribune.com. Reach him at mscarp1@cox.net.
mwmike posted at 7:00 pm on Sat, Aug 18, 2012.
Save you're outrage for "Citizens United" and all the other racist, hateful, anonymous, liars spending literally billions of dollars trying to defeat a great, family values President. Oh, and I don't think you have to worry about "threats", milquetoast .
timdlittle posted at 7:39 pm on Sat, Aug 18, 2012.
Who are the candidates that they are talking a bout?
JMJ posted at 11:03 pm on Sun, Aug 19, 2012.
Open hatred of marginalized groups of people is accepted in our society. Look at the Chick-fil-A incident, recently. The bully pulpit is alive and well and living in the East Valley. It is uncomfortable to hear the Catholic-bashing that goes on due to the pedophile priests that permeated the parishes in the US and here in AZ. But, do I understand why that takes place? You bet. And, do I understand that sometimes criticism is deserved by a group that is frustratingly insular and does not afford equal opportunity to others in the workplace, when there should be a separation of church and state? You bet. I am not one of the group you cite that sent the hate mail, and I'd never publish tracts against anyone. But, I certainly have felt the sting of discrimination at the hands of the "good people" of the East Valley. Experience is a great teacher. I don't treat "you people" the way "you people" have treated me. But, I have a right to my opinions, and a right to keep my identity anonymous. Bigotry works both ways. While we'd all like to say we aren't prejudiced about any group, the reality is that personal opinions are sometimes well-earned. Sad but true.
Leon Ceniceros posted at 7:59 am on Mon, Aug 20, 2012.
Oh come on now....let's be honest here, Mr. Scarp.
Did you ever hear of the.........."CITIZENS FOR A BETTER AMERICA" ???
This was the political group that came together to oust Mesa Senator Russell Pearce.
One day it just suddenly appeared out of nowhere and so did Mormon Bishop Jerry Lewis to be their candidate.
Mr. Scarp, you have access to the East Valley Tribune photo archives....go back and look at the photos taken of this group and the people in photos with Bishop Jerry Lewis. You will see, 100% White, clean-cut, well-groomed, dress-panted, long-sleeve wearing middle-aged .....MEN (aka "brothers")....no WOMEN....just men. Now what manner of political group in 2012 is the "politically correct" America of Today has only White, middle-aged, well-dressed (not a pair of shorts or a tee-shirt or sandals on a one) Men = a Mormon one.
This group was brought together not by their "concern" for the rights of Illegal Alien Hispanics but because their leadership had concieved and was pushing the "UTAH COMPACT" to give "back-door Citizenship" to millions of Illegal Aliens. The major focus of Mormon prostilization. Russell Pearce's ..SB1070...stood in the way of the "UTAH COMPACT".....so Russell Pearce had to go.
It was a foregone conclusion that Bishop Jerry Lewis would be elected, not because of his wholesome appearance (the EVT never took a photo of him that wasn't a "glamor shot"....while Pearce's photos always showed him ...scowling or with his mouth twisted open)..........but because ..MESA IS THE MOST MORMON CITY IN THE UNITED STATES.
HOW ELSE TO YOU EXPLAIN THAT ALMOST 65% OF ARIZONIANS SUPPORTED ...SB 1070...AND IN THE PREVIOUS ELECTION....PEARCE WON IN A LANDSLIDE...........THE PEOPLE OF MESA DIDN'T TURN AGAINST...RUSSELL PEARCE....THE MORMON CHURCH DID !!!
Engaged Voter posted at 1:12 pm on Mon, Aug 20, 2012.
"I think the content of what was said — to vote for or against someone based on their religious beliefs — has no reasonable place in politics."
I agree 100%! It has NO place in politics.
But until the various Christian groups (Mormons included) release their strangehold on American politics, it seems silly and hypocritical to blame the other side.
I never saw the mailer, so I must ask - was it defamatory, or simply fact-based? (I ask because I get accused of attacking religion all the time, when all I do is post facts)
DavidNichols posted at 4:41 pm on Mon, Aug 20, 2012.
You know Mr. Scarp, I was raised L.D.S. and I can remember when being a "Latter Day Saint" meant more.
We didn't group all Immigrants Men Women, and even Children as Murderers, Rapist, Drug Cartels, ect.
We didn't believe in "Attrition" (Starving the Good, Hard Working Hispanic Parents of our own Citizen Children to make them leave.)
We did not own Private Prisons, or make Billions of dollars in Profit Detaining Non-Criminal Human Beings.
We did not believe in Deporting/Dumping Hundreds of Thousands of Lamanite/Hispanic Human Beings at the Harsh U.S. Mexico Border with nothing, into a known "Drug War" as I.C.E. has done , and where over Forty-two Thousand Hispanics now lay Dead!
We did not believe in ripping good hard working Parents from their Legal Citizen Children, or Families.
We believed that "We are all Gods Children."
We would stand for the Persecuted, not Persecute them!
We did not Embrace, or Babtize Nazi;s!
We stood for Good, and would not Waiver!
Much has changed in the Arizona Branch of "Latter Day Saints"!
None for the Better!
"America is great because it is good, when it cease to be good, it ceases to be great.
Alex De Tocqueville
"Latter Day Saints"???
No Longer!!!!
Politic's does not excuse these Dirty Actions.
Many "Saints" have a rude awakening coming in the end.
To: Good, and Brotherhood, from Sea, to shining Sea.
"Choose the Right"
What a Joke!
Most Scincerely:
Latter Day Saint
David Nichols
I am glad I was Raised Far Better, than Todays Racist "Saints".
mrconservative posted at 9:32 am on Tue, Aug 21, 2012.
Tsk, tsk, tsk. It's "Latter-day Saints" not "Latter Day Saints"
True Christians are not racist. I try to be a true Christian. I have never at any time had any hard feelings toward someone because of their skin color. I try to look at the content of their character, not the color of their skin. Sound familiar?
I have known many Hispanics in my life, and one was a great friend of mine. I don't see him regularly anymore, since he's a father now, and has moved out of my area, though I still see his Dad often. I was also great friends with a Tongan-American, who is also married. His Dad is this huge muscular guy, who would make an excellent bodyguard.
And, EV, what do you mean by "release their strangehold"?
Engaged Voter posted at 1:10 pm on Wed, Aug 22, 2012.
"I have never at any time had any hard feelings toward someone because of their skin color."
So you reject the Mormon teachings of skin color and race?
Or are you going to pretend they aren't there (which would be LYING)?
'EV, what do you mean by "release their strangehold"?'
I mean the stranglehold on government the various tax exempt cults (yours included) have. Forcing their religious views on the rest of us, sometimes as actual laws.
Are you so ignorant of American History that you don't know this already?