Privacy and Free Speech

Anyone can criticize the government. And that includes government employees.

"Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty." -- Attributed in several forms to various speakers, including John Philpot Curran, Dublin, 1790; Thomas Paine, 1777; abolitionist Wendell Phillips, 1852; Andrew Jackson, 1837, and others.

   The U.S. government last week demanded that Twitter reveal the names of those posting anti-Trump remarks on the social media site.
   Prosecutors served a subpoena on Twitter, noting that operators of the site claimed to be government employees, and the government needed to know who was posting remarks in order to stop leaks of potentially important information.
   Twitter, however, refused to honor the subpoena and filed suit against the government, citing privacy rights and the First Amendment guarantee of free speech.
   The next day, the government withdrew the subpoena, and Twitter dropped the lawsuit.
   Whether the Tweeters actually were government employees is an open question. Nonetheless, the right of free speech belongs to all. If the administration is so paranoid that it cannot abide criticism or disagreement, then the problem is theirs, not the American public.
   And because of this paranoia, a free press must sometimes depend on reliable but anonymous sources for information that the public needs to know.
   At the same time, there is something to be said for the idea that if you want to comment or criticize someone or something, you should have the courage to attach your name to your opinions. Even so, government or corporate employees may sometimes need the protection of anonymity to avoid  retribution.
   So until and unless government and company officials abandon their efforts to stifle dissent, the First Amendment right of free speech may occasionally need the protection of anonymity.