• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Who is Publius? or, Who's Afraid of Anonymous Political Speech?

haymarket

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2010
Messages
120,951
Reaction score
28,520
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Is there a point to this that deserves a discussion?
 

American

Constitutionalist
Bartender
Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
89,077
Reaction score
28,100
Location
SE Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Poor guy. Never read the Federalist Papers?

Is that what you conclude from that response? I conclude from the OP that nothing to discuss has been raised.
 

haymarket

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2010
Messages
120,951
Reaction score
28,520
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Is that what you conclude from that response? I conclude from the OP that nothing to discuss has been raised.

Thank you American. That was my point.
 

Mensch

Mr. Professional
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 12, 2010
Messages
3,715
Reaction score
751
Location
Northern Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Is that what you conclude from that response? I conclude from the OP that nothing to discuss has been raised.

I'm sorry you guys didn't get the joke.

The authors of the Federalist Papers used the pseudonym "Publius" to remain anonymous, and the video began with controversy over anonymous campaign advertising.
 

tacomancer

Christian Capitalist Social Democrat
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
44,333
Reaction score
24,483
Location
Akron
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
I'm sorry you guys didn't get the joke.

The authors of the Federalist Papers used the pseudonym "Publius" to remain anonymous, and the video began with controversy over anonymous campaign advertising.

I see nothing wrong with anonymous speech in a situation where one's life could be in danger for having a certain view. The FFs were certainly in this situation during the early days. I am not so much a fan otherwise because who the person is and knowing their interests helps me understand why they would say what they say as there is no default reason to trust anyone politically.
 

Mensch

Mr. Professional
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 12, 2010
Messages
3,715
Reaction score
751
Location
Northern Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I see nothing wrong with anonymous speech in a situation where one's life could be in danger for having a certain view. The FFs were certainly in this situation during the early days. I am not so much a fan otherwise because who the person is and knowing their interests helps me understand why they would say what they say as there is no default reason to trust anyone politically.

What do you mean you are not so much a fan otherwise? And what does it matter if you trust them or not. We're talking about political/legal matters and the First Amendment. Congress shall make no restricting the freedom of speech, and that includes the freedom to speak anonymously. You don't have to trust it or even agree with the speech, but you have no right to restrict anonymous speech made by third parties.

And the threat of violence that may or may not materialize from public speech is always a possibility, whether we're discussing the founding fathers or your contemporary advocacy group.
 

haymarket

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2010
Messages
120,951
Reaction score
28,520
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I'm sorry you guys didn't get the joke.

The authors of the Federalist Papers used the pseudonym "Publius" to remain anonymous, and the video began with controversy over anonymous campaign advertising.

They old advice is "if you gotta explain it, it wasn't funny".
 

Guy Incognito

DP Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2010
Messages
11,216
Reaction score
2,818
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Sure, everybody has a right to anonymous speech, it is part and parcel to the right to freedom of speech. Legally, even corporations have the right to free speech.

But the government isn't infringing on anybody's rights when they set the rules for their own elections. Keep in mind we're talking about campaign speech here, which is regulated.
 
Last edited:

haymarket

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2010
Messages
120,951
Reaction score
28,520
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Already read em Guy - at least a lot of them. But college was so long ago.

And obviously everybody else did not get it. See post #4.
 
Last edited:

Guy Incognito

DP Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2010
Messages
11,216
Reaction score
2,818
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Already read em Guy - at least a lot of them. But college was so long ago.

That's cool, guess you just forgot about the Publius attribution. We can identify who Publius was in each case with near certainty so it isn't really important any more, anyway.

But the name Publius always stuck out in my mind. I love a good pseudonym.
 

haymarket

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2010
Messages
120,951
Reaction score
28,520
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
yup - think I may have filed that away with the other tons of unused stuff over the decades. Its good we are reminded of the name however since today we just think of the real men who we believe wrote them.
 

Mensch

Mr. Professional
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 12, 2010
Messages
3,715
Reaction score
751
Location
Northern Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Sure, everybody has a right to anonymous speech, it is part and parcel to the right to freedom of speech. Legally, even corporations have the right to free speech.

But the government isn't infringing on anybody's rights when they set the rules for their own elections. Keep in mind we're talking about campaign speech here, which is regulated.

I must have missed that part of the First Amendment.

The First Amendment makes no distinction between personal speech and campaign speech. ALL should be free and clear of restrictive law.
 

Mensch

Mr. Professional
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 12, 2010
Messages
3,715
Reaction score
751
Location
Northern Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Already read em Guy - at least a lot of them. But college was so long ago.

And obviously everybody else did not get it. See post #4.

You should KNOW the Federalist Papers. We're debating politics on a public forum. It is crucial, and almost mandatory, that you know the federalist papers along with the constitution. Debating the framework of the constitution without knowing the federalist papers is like prescribing medicine without a medical degree. A math professor who hasn't read a math book since college has no business teaching math to students. You need to bring the FP out of your storage, dust it off, and read it. Please.
 

haymarket

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2010
Messages
120,951
Reaction score
28,520
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
You should KNOW the Federalist Papers. We're debating politics on a public forum. It is crucial, and almost mandatory, that you know the federalist papers along with the constitution. Debating the framework of the constitution without knowing the federalist papers is like prescribing medicine without a medical degree. A math professor who hasn't read a math book since college has no business teaching math to students. You need to bring the FP out of your storage, dust it off, and read it. Please.

I do not entirely agree to place the emphasis upon them as you and some others do. They are an important part of the historical record that explains the thinking of a few individuals included as our Founding Fathers particularly Hamilton and Madison. As such they should be read and understood for what they are.

They are not part of our Constitution. They do not have the force of law. Chief Justice John Marshall famously said of them

the opinions expressed by the authors of that work have been justly supposed to be entitled to great respect in expounding the Constitution. No tribute can be paid to them which exceeds their merit; but in applying their opinions to the cases which may arise in the progress of our government, a right to judge of their correctness must be retained."

and Madison himself
gave them less credence than many modern readers seem to do..... from the article in Wikipedia
Madison himself believed not only that The Federalist Papers were not a direct expression of the ideas of the Founders, but that those ideas themselves, and the "debates and incidental decisions of the Convention," should not be viewed as having any "authoritative character." In short, "the legitimate meaning of the Instrument must be derived from the text itself; or if a key is to be sought elsewhere, it must be not in the opinions or intentions of the Body which planned & proposed the Constitution, but in the sense attached to it by the people in their respective State Conventions where it recd. all the Authority which it possesses
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom