and President Harry S Truman and consid-
pelled speakers to add their own names as
ered by many to be the architect of America's
part of the content. "[T]he identity of the
postwar policy of "containment," signed his
speaker is no different from other compo-
influential 1947 essay, "The Sources of Soviet
nents of the document's content that the
Power," merely as "X."1 9 Politicians, including
author is free to include or exclude."2 7
presidents, communicate anonymously with
Anonymity, the Justices pointed out,
the press when they wish to express ideas or
"provides a way for a writer who may be per-
communicate information without attribu-
sonally unpopular to ensure that readers will
tion; press reports are full of quotes attributed
not prejudge her message simply because
they do not like its proponent."28
to sources such as "a senior State Department
official" or "a senior White House staff mem
-
The Court astutely placed Mrs. McIntyre's
ber." Pseudonymity has also protected people
leaflet in the context of centuries of anony-
stigmatized by prior political speech or associ-
mous political discourse. "Under our
ation; many blacklisted writers continued to
Constitution, anonymous pamphleteering is
work throughout the McCarthy era by using
not a pernicious, fraudulent practice, but an
names other than their own.2 0
honorable tradition of advocacy and of dis-
sent. Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny
The Supreme
of the majority."2 9 Though the Supreme
Court has consis-
The Supreme Court on
Court usually refers only to prior case law
and scholarly legal writings in its holdings, in
Anonymous Speech
tently held that
this case the Justices took the unusual mea-
anonymous and
sure of citing John Stuart Mill's On Liberty in
The Supreme Court has consistently held
pseudonymous
support of the proposition that anonymity is
that anonymous and pseudonymous speech
a protection against the majority's tyranny.30
is protected by the First Amendment. In its
speech is protect-
most recent statement, McIntyre v. Ohio
McIntyre was not a lightning bolt from the
ed by the First
Campaign Commission,2 1 the Court invalidated
blue but the culmination of a consistent and
carefully reasoned series of cases dating back
an Ohio ordinance requiring the authors of
Amendment.
campaign leaflets to identify themselves.22
to the 1950s. In its earlier jurisprudence, the
Court repeatedly upheld the right of the
The Mrs. McIntyre in the case had been fined
NAACP to keep its membership lists secret
for handing out anonymous leaflets during a
local school board campaign.2 3 The Court
from state prying.31 Later, citing an astonish-
repeated what it had said in Talley:
ing record of federal government harassment
"Anonymous pamphlets, leaflets, brochures
and dirty tricks, the Court excused the Ohio
and even books have played an important
Socialist Workers' Party from state require-
role in the progress of mankind."2 4 It recog-
ments that it disclose its list of contributors.3 2
nized that an author may have a variety of
Moreover, the Court had also previously
valid motives for shielding her identity:
invalidated a Los Angeles ordinance against
the distribution of anonymous leaflets.3 3
The decision in favor of anonymity
The parallel between Mrs. McIntyre's
may be motivated by fear of econom
-
leaflet and an unsigned Web page or e-mail
ic or official retaliation, by concern
on a political topic is obvious. Nevertheless,
about social ostracism, or merely by
people who fail to see the analogy between
a desire to preserve as much of one's
the Internet and the print media continue to
privacy as possible.25
call for a ban on anonymity in cyberspace.
The Court compared the Ohio ordinance
The Georgia Law
to the newspaper right-of-reply law it had
invalidated in Miami Herald Publishing Co. v.
Tornillo,2 6 noting that the ordinance com
-
In 1996, the Georgia legislature passed
3