On September 9, 2012, a U.S. District Court ruled that Maine does not violate the U.S. Constitution when it bans anonymous blogs that make commentary about a candidate for public office. The court refused to stop the Maine Commission on Governmental Ethics from fining Dennis Bailey for refusing to identify himself on his own blog, “The Cutler Files.” UPDATE: here is a copy of the decision. Thanks to Robbin Stewart for the link.
This is not new news, but because this outcome had not previously been reported either here, or in many other press outlets, it is being mentioned now even though it happened over six months ago. The decision is Bailey v State of Maine Commission on Governmental Ethics and Election Practices, 1:11-cv-179. The Maine law exempts periodicals from the disclosure requirement. The Court ruled that Bailey’s webpage was not a true periodical, because it was set up to post damaging material about Eliot Cutler, an independent candidate for Governor of Maine, and that it was never intended to be a permanent blog. It said the blog was more like a “negative campaign flyer than a periodical publication.”
In 1995, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in McIntyre v Ohio Elections Commission, 514 U.S. 334, that the U.S. Constitution protects anonymous speech about elections. The Maine decision distinguishes that by noting that the Ohio case involved speech about a ballot question, not a candidate. Also the Maine decision says that Citizens United v FEC upheld mandatory disclosure about the identity of speakers, concerning speech about candidates for public office. Bailey did not appeal the decision in his own case; probably one reason is that his fine was only $200.
ANY anonymous stuff about the King George III regime (i.e. his stooges in the Brit-Am colonies) in 1761-1776 ??? Duh.
See that anonymous pamphlet in Jan 1776 (after KGIII declared the colonies in a state of rebellion in Aug 1775) — producing the DOI on 4 July 1776.
i.e. one more EVIL MORON robot party hack judge — with total contempt for the DOI and the 1st Amdt.
Great concerns here. I am extremely content to view your post. Many thanks a whole lot and i am looking forward to contact anyone. Will you kindly lower us a e-mail?
is the decision online anywhere?
the judge is wrong about mcintyre, which found a statute regulating candidate speech unconstitutional. citizens united was about corporate speech, and probably doesn’t apply to individuals, but the court left that unclear.
the opinion ignores Opinion of the Justices 1974, in which the Maine Supreme Court held that anonymous speech is protected by the state constitution. thanks for bringing this case to our attention.
1973 Opinion of the Justices, 306 A.2d 18 (Maine 1973)
Actually, I didn’t appeal because I was told by my lawyers, the ACLU of Maine, that at the district level this decision has little impact. If we appealed and got an equally bad decision, it could have a much broader impact on bloggers everywhere.
A couple of points: while the website contained “damaging information” about candidate Cutler, it was accurate, truthful information, sourced with over 100 links to original materials including books, newspapers and court documents, and has never been disputed. As a member of the protected press would say when they write articles citing anonymous sources, I stand by my story.
#5, thank you very much for your comment. If you could get an electronic copy of the decision, I could put it on my server and link to it, so that anyone could read it. I have read the decision on Pacer but I can’t link to a document I saw on Pacer.
If you email me your email address, I can send you a copy of the decision.
DB
#7, thank you very much. But I recently got the decision from someone else, so now I have a link to it above.