a slight but important nitpick: the ruling declares the state enforcing safety of a populist trumps the commercial anonymity of the populace.
based on what I'm reading, the ruling is all about the ability to view and speak anonymously, as opposed to the ability to view and speak at all. the supreme Court is basically saying you have the right to say in view whatever you like, but you don't have the right to do it anonymously.
What they're saying is that the state can impose condtions regarding under what circumstances you're allowed to speak. As in, "you're not allowed to speak at all, unless you disclose your identity first."
It's only how it works in the post-WWII, jew world order. In the past, anonymous writing was common. Some of the most influential works were written by authors who were either unknown at the time (some of them risked execution if discovered), or are unknown today.
a slight but important nitpick: the ruling declares the state enforcing safety of a populist trumps the commercial anonymity of the populace.
based on what I'm reading, the ruling is all about the ability to view and speak anonymously, as opposed to the ability to view and speak at all. the supreme Court is basically saying you have the right to say in view whatever you like, but you don't have the right to do it anonymously.
What they're saying is that the state can impose condtions regarding under what circumstances you're allowed to speak. As in, "you're not allowed to speak at all, unless you disclose your identity first."
That’s how it works in the real world. There are very few cases you can speak or write anonymously.
It's only how it works in the post-WWII, jew world order. In the past, anonymous writing was common. Some of the most influential works were written by authors who were either unknown at the time (some of them risked execution if discovered), or are unknown today.