Nikki Haley Comes Out As An Anti-First Amendment Advocate
“It is a universal truth that the loss of liberty at home is to be charged to the provisions against danger, real or pretended, from abroad.” (James Madison)
Why are our rights protected by the Constitution always under attack? The answer is simple – we ignore what we see when politicians let their masks slip and vote for them based on their flowery words written by writers whose moral compasses always points to the largest paycheck. The latest example of this is Nikki Haley.
During an interview on fox Ms. Haley stated:[i]
“Every person on social media should be verified by their name, that’s first of all it’s a national security threat. When you do that all of a sudden people have to stand by what they say and it gets rid of the Russian bots, the Iranian bots, and the Chinese bots and then you’re going to get some civility when people know their name is next to what they say and they know their pastor and their family members are going to see it’s going to help our kids and it’s going to help our country.”
It’s unclear whether Ms. Haley wants to require that the government verify all people by name before they can speak on Social Media (SM), or for the government to mandate that all Social Media (SM) platforms verify people’s accounts by name before allowing them to speak. It really doesn’t matter – both are unconstitutional.
Allowing the government to impose this requirement, directly or indirectly, would destroy anonymous speech which has been an American right dating back to before the founding of this country and protected by the 1st Amendment since 1791. Hell, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison anonymously published the pro-Constitution Federalist Papers in 1787 and 1788 using the pseudonym “Publius.” Under Ms. Haley’s logic these 3 American legends would’ve been criminals. The irony runs deep.
Ms. Haley’s plan would also destroy the right of anonymous association, a right that is provided everyone, even those who belong to controversial groups.[ii] In fact, Ms. Haley’s plan runs afoul of every Supreme Court decision handed down in at least the last 66 years. Just a few examples:
The anonymity of people who are members of groups, even controversial groups, is a protected right under the 1st Amendment’s free speech and assembly clauses as well as the 14th Amendments due process clause:
– Watkins v. United States (1957);
– NAACP v. Alabama (1958);
– Bates v. Little Rock (1960), and
– Gibson v. Florida Legislative Investigation Committee (1963).
The right of individuals to anonymously engage in political activity, including speech, is a protected right under the 1st Amendment’s free speech clause:
– Talley v. California (1960);
– McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission (1995);
– Buckley v. American Constitutional Law Foundation (1999);
– Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York v. Village of Stratton (2002).
There are also state cases recognizing the right to anonymous speech, the two most noteworthy I am aware of are:
– Dentrite International, Inc. v. Doe No. 3, 775 A.2d 756 (N.J. App. Div. 2001) and Cahill v. Doe, 879 A.2d 943 (Del. Super. Ct., June 14, 2005).
Ms. Haley’s demand that people be verified by name before being allowed to speak on SM is also an unconstitutional ‘prior restraint on speech.’ Prior restraint can occur in several ways. However, one of the more common ways is for the government to implement a statute or regulation requiring a speaker to obtain a permit or license before speaking. Requiring verification by name before allowing a person to speak on SM is requiring a license to speak, and therefore, is unconstitutional.
The most famous, but far from the only, prior restraint case is New York Times v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971), better known as the “Pentagon Papers.” In this case the Court held that prior restraint of speech is only acceptable when the publication of that information “would cause inevitable, direct, and immediate danger to the United States.” (emphasis mine). If the government doesn’t even know what information is to be published on SM, then the government certainly cannot know that speech “would cause inevitable, direct, and immediate danger to the United States.” Though New York Times v. U.S. was decided on the First Amendment’s freedom of press clause, the same reasoning applies to deciding a prior restraint case involving the free speech clause.
Simply put, the government cannot constitutionally mandate that SM accounts be verified by the name of those using them, before those people are allowed to speak on SM.
To be fair, Ms. Haley did clarify her initial statement. Unfortunately, her ‘clarification’ makes it clear that she believes the government should unconstitutionally interfere with Americans’ free speech and association rights in order to advance some vague goal of enforcing civility. Her reasoning for this authoritarian action? Why it’s a matter of “national security” because Chinese and Iranians are spreading “chaos and anti-American filth among our people.” Sounds to me this is just another variation of the ‘let’s censor people because of the misinformation being spread on SM.’ Besides, most of the anti-American filth I’m seeing is coming from our MSM and elected officials such as Reps. Omar, Ocasio-Cortez, Tlaib, Pressley, and more.
It’s time we stop electing people who view the Constitution as nothing more than a bunch of words written on old paper to any office – local, state, or federal. Instead, we need to ensure that everyone, including Ms. Haley, who openly advocates to restrict Americans’ civil liberties in violation of the Constitution are not allowed anywhere near a position of authority, and certainly nowhere near the Oval Office.
[i] I transcribed this myself from the video clip, so any mistakes are mine.
[ii] The Court has recognized the right of association, including anonymous association based on the 1st Amendment’s free speech and right to assemble clauses, and the 14th Amendment’s due process clause:
“It is beyond debate that freedom to engage in association for the advancement of beliefs and ideas is an inseparable aspect of the ‘liberty’ assured by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which embraces freedom of speech. . . . Of course, it is immaterial whether the beliefs sought to be advanced by association pertain to political, economic, religious or cultural matters, and state action which may have the effect of curtailing the freedom to associate is subject to the closest scrutiny.” NAACP v. Alabama ex rel. Patterson, 357 U.S. 449 (1958);
Right to association and the right to anonymously associate found as an independent freedom protected by the 1st Amendment. (BATES v. CITY OF LITTLE ROCK 361 U.S. 516, 522–23 (1960); United Transportation Union v. State Bar of Michigan, 401 U.S. 576, 578–79 (1971); Healy v. James, 408 U.S. 169, 181 (1972)).