South Australia Outlaws Anonymous Political Speech 352
Sabriel writes "If you're online in South Australia and want to comment about the upcoming state election, be prepared to hand over your real name and postcode first — because this month it becomes illegal to do so anonymously (even under a pseudonym). Media organizations must keep your details on file for six months and face 'fines of $5000 if they do not hand over this information to the Electoral Commissioner.' This abomination was passed with the support of both major parties (Labour and Liberal), and to quote its sponsor, Attorney-General Michael Atkinson, 'There is no impinging on freedom of speech, people are free to say what they wish as themselves, not as somebody else.' Apparently incapable of targeting a few impostors without resorting to 'nuke it from orbit' legislative tactics, Atkinson has forgotten that protecting anonymity is important to the democratic process; hopefully both major parties will get a reminder come the polls on March 20."
Feh (Score:5, Funny)
No critisism. Less freedom than the "suggestion box" at my office. Lame.
Australian citizens, PLEASE do the right thing. (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not an Australian, but as a fellow citizen of the Western world, I'm putting out a call to all Australians to do the right thing, and vote all of these fools out of power. Parties are irrelevant. Get some people in there who love democracy, who crave freedom, who protect privacy, and who promote free expression.
Australians, please take charge. Be the leaders that the Western world so badly needs. Show us that democracy can work, especially in the face of those who strive so hard to crush it.
Be to the Western world what Poland and Hungary were to the Eastern Bloc nations twenty years ago.
Re:Australian citizens, PLEASE do the right thing. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Australian citizens, PLEASE do the right thing. (Score:5, Insightful)
This has the support of both major parties and here in .au we have a de facto two party system. This situation highlights the fact that when western powers go militarily gallivanting around the developing word with armies while brandishing words like "freedom" and "democracy", they're actually engaging in bald-faced lies, because they neither understand those words nor do they desire them.
Fortunately this is unenforcable. (Score:3, Insightful)
I'd like to say that this is a good thing as it highlights the incompetence in our representatives but the sad truth is we already know this and no one cares.
Re:Australian citizens, PLEASE do the right thing. (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not an Australian, but as a fellow citizen of the Western world, I'm putting out a call to all Australians to do the right thing, and vote all of these fools out of power.
By the time they could be voted out of power, the damage caused could keep the next batch busy for their whole term trying to undo it all (that is, IF the next batch was any better at all). The question to ask is how did they get in there in the first place? People voting them in? Very well then, we can expect more of the same next time then. If voting could change anything, it would be illegal too.
Re:Australian citizens, PLEASE do the right thing. (Score:5, Interesting)
Here's a question for you:
If democracy works so well, why is it devolving into this same sort of scenario everywhere we look?
If democracy works so well, why are we now in the position of having to vote the bastards out? how did they get voted in to start with??
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It's only impossible because voters are stupid and gullible. It certainly is possible for non-party candidates to get elected, and it does happen once in a blue moon. For instance, 10-15 years ago, Jesse Ventura was elected governor of Minnosota, even though he was an independent. It was a complete surprise for the Dems and the Reps.
However, he didn't get re-elected; he spoke his mind too much and offended voters, such as by saying that religion is for weak-minded fools; not that I disagree, but voters a
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Ventura wasn't re-elected because he didn't want to be governor again. He didn't for re-election, so he obviously would not have won.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Isn't Atkinson the guy that believes videogames are satanic?
He uses Rape Lay (a game not even available in Australia) to push his efforts to get videogames banned.
Or something like that. I'm not an Aussie. :P
Why is this bad? (Score:3, Interesting)
The right to free speech is not the right to anonymous speech. The proverbial soapbox was never anonymous. Why should political speech be anonymous? I can see how it might make some folks happy, but I don't see why it has to be right. Just let me vote secretly.
Re:Why is this bad? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why should political speech be anonymous?
Because sometimes it can get you beat up [amazon.com] or killed [google.com].
If anonymity is as needless as you claim, why do you have a secret ballot? Why not require everyone to broadcast who they voted for?
Re:Why is this bad? (Score:4, Insightful)
They're also a good way to keep people from being forced to vote a certain way under threat of violence.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The right to free speech is not the right to anonymous speech. The proverbial soapbox was never anonymous. Why should political speech be anonymous? I can see how it might make some folks happy, but I don't see why it has to be right. Just let me vote secretly.
Lack of anonymous speech isn't really a problem by itself, it's the backlash that people often receive when they say something unpopular. If there were a way to guarantee safety, from both the government and other individuals, because of unpopular speech, anonymous speech probably wouldn't be necessary. Since that's highly unlikely any time soon, though, I can understand the requirement for anonymous political speech.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If backlash is the problem, perhaps there another underlying problem. The society is too intolerant. Annonymity may let one hide from backlash but it's not solving the problem.
What is true is that speech without the need for responsibility leads to untempered opinons but gains little in freedom of thought. I would assert that the origin of a lot of intolerance is this very anonymity that allows aggressive demography and disrespectful behavior.
One needs to ask, who is the one applying the backlash. Is it
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The BEST thing the government here ever did was get rid of those firearms.
We unlike some do not worship guns, and have a much lower death rate then the US.
Note that the SA AG Atkinson has already backed down and decided to retrospectively repeal the law -without a gun in sight. It seems we have a working democracy youn dont.
Your attempt to use this issue to try
and justify an rant against the sensible policies we have is null and void.
They are stopping it! (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/victory-atkinson-loosens-gag/story-e6frea6u-1225826104175
Re:They are stopping it! (Score:4, Informative)
Well, technically, from your link...
"I will immediately after the election move to repeal the law retrospectively."
So, it's in effect until after the election.
Re:They are stopping it! (Score:5, Insightful)
If so, couldn't they have build this expiration date into the law itself?
Re:They are stopping it! (Score:5, Insightful)
"I will immediately after the election move to repeal the law retrospectively."
Promises, promises. . .
-FL
Re:They are stopping it! (Score:5, Informative)
How can you tell when a politician is lying?
His lips are moving.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Worse, you can tell they are lying when they are breathing.
MOD PARENT UP (Score:5, Informative)
Attorney-General Michael Atkinson vows to repeal election internet censorship law amid reader furore [adelaidenow.com.au]
Slashdot's a little behind today, it seems.
Re:MOD PARENT UP (Score:5, Funny)
Today? TODAY? Are you new here, or do you have a short memory? ;)
Re: (Score:2)
Today? TODAY? Are you new here, or do you have a short memory? ;)
Didn't the guy in Memento go on Slashdot? I forget
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So...
1)Politician passes hated law
2)People complain
3)Politician does 180 and says he will get law retracted after the elections
4)Politician gets re-elected
5)Profit?
oblig (Score:5, Insightful)
If anonymity is outlawed, only outlaws will have anonymity...
My views (Score:5, Funny)
Both parties suck.
Come find me bitches!
Re:My views (Score:5, Funny)
Both parties suck. Come find me bitches!
What are you trying to do, bankrupt Slashdot?
Some quick calculations. $5000 AUS is about, er, 50 quid or somthing, um, so, by my estimations Slashdot will go offline in approx... er..
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Both parties suck.
Come find me bitches!
What are you trying to do, bankrupt Slashdot?
Some quick calculations. $5000 AUS is about, er, 50 quid or somthing, um, so, by my estimations Slashdot will go offline in approx... er..
This is why having slashdot in the USA is superior to most other countries. People were complaining about EXPORT laws last week for sourceforge.... the USA is looking pretty good now.
Re:My views (Score:5, Funny)
If I could find some bitches I'd keep them to myself.
Obligatory Soviet Russia joke: (Score:5, Funny)
The American constitution guarantees freedom after speech.
Obviously the Australia constitution guarantees nothing.
Re:Obligatory Soviet Russia joke: (Score:5, Insightful)
Obviously the Australia constitution guarantees nothing.
Pretty much.
Australian laws are largely created to criminalise anybody, anytime. You know the old joke, "I read my border entry form and didn't realise I had to be a criminal to qualify for entry to Australia!" - the reality is that everybody in Australia is a criminal, take your pick which laws you're breaking at any one time.
If you think you haven't committed any crimes today you'll have a retrospective law applied to you in the future. Never fear, nobody gets away!
Re:Obligatory Soviet Russia joke: (Score:4, Interesting)
Stop working and go steal stuff. What do you have to lose?
N.B. This is not legal advice.
Aussie Mates (Score:3, Funny)
You do know why everyone in Australia calls each other "mate", don't you?
It's short for Inmate.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You know the old joke, "I read my border entry form and didn't realise I had to be a criminal to qualify for entry to Australia!" - the reality is that everybody in Australia is a criminal, take your pick which laws you're breaking at any one time.
And yet the ironic thing is that South Australia is the only state not founded by convicts.
I'm not Australian but... (Score:3, Interesting)
I would have mixed emotions about this. On the one hand, there's Thomas Payne, who would have hanged had the British known who was posting those flyers. Anonymity is part of free speech.
OTOH, if you hear something good about a candidate, it's good to know that it was an oil company executive or an RIAA goon who who is so enthusiastic about that particular politician.
Re:I'm not Australian but... (Score:5, Interesting)
I think the right to be anonymous is more important than knowing who said what. You just know that the politicians put this law in place so that they could harass or politically destroy those who would speak against them. It's a "strategic *law* against public participation".
Censorship is the road to fascism.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I think the right to be anonymous is more important than knowing who said what. You just know that the politicians put this law in place so that they could harass or politically destroy those who would speak against them. It's a "strategic *law* against public participation".
I've been thinking about this lately. Been watching too many dramas where a criminal wants to "face his accuser".
Saying something that the established power base does not want to be heard has consequences. Revealing one's identity can result in injury or death. This is why so many criminals never face justice - what witness wants to have a gang destroy their lives? What individual wants to be targeted by a main political party with threat of police action or secret retribution?
Anonymity is a fundamental
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I know being a geek that I'm supposed to be all pro-electronic freedom and such, but I actually like some aspects of this. Certainly not all but some aspects in any case. I'm so tired of reading statements posted by anonymous people stating this person did this, and that person did that, and this one is the anti-christ, and that one is a pedophile, etc, etc, ad-nauseum. I suspect all of those 'bold' claims will disappear if people are forced to put their names behind their statements unless they have facts
Re:I'm not Australian but... (Score:5, Insightful)
As you point out, it gets problematic when people forget the verify step.
Re:I'm not Australian but... (Score:4, Interesting)
No, it'll just make them sure that now they'll be identified and possibly "stopped" by those who don't appreciate their positions.
Your boss is a militant for party X? You'd better don't say anything bad about them, or you'll find yourself out of a job.
1995 US Supreme Court precedent in support of anonymity:
http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/93-986.ZO.html [cornell.edu]
Re:I'm not Australian but... (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually I'd say it's an almost perfect example of why anonymous speech is almost harmless and is perfectly fine.
Hell on slashdot I can't even see it without changing my settings.
As an anonymous post it holds pretty much zero weight because it cites no sources and doesn't back up it's claims.
If I say "Bill gates has 6 toes" under the name "John Smith" on the other hand people would be less inclined to pay attention to the fact that I have nothing to back up what I'm saying because hey, it's not anonymous.
Re: (Score:2)
If you want to back someone up, feel free, but your backing won't have much power if it's made by someone entirely anonymous. If nobody knows X Oil Company supports candidate Y, then he doesn't have the backing of the large company, just that of Anonymous User Z (which isn't much).
It should not matter who voices the opinion (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't care if its the ACLU, RIAA, Greenpeace, NRA, or George Clooney.
People accept views in line with their own usually without regard to source. Far too many put any effort in determining if quotes are from the actual source let alone what some of the those groups with fancy names really represent.
I want all the speech we can get, the day where we outlaw it because of some petty concerns, and yours are petty, is the day we start down the path of excluding groups by voluntary organization which in turn because those of involuntary association.
Sorry, either all or nothing and all is the only choice. Look at any politician who comes out against a particular type of speech and you will find an incumbent fearful of losing his power over others.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So is it wrong to limit free speech when it is not only horribly incorrect but also maliciously so? Say Politician a is afraid of loosing his power to lying scumbag politician b who has no concern for what is true but only winning his own power? Or should that be protected as well?
That should most definitely be protected as well. "all or nothing and all is the only choice", as the GP stated, is pretty clear.
Re:I'm not Australian but... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, but an oil company exec is smart enough and rich enough to conceal his identity. You're never going to see a political ad that says "Brought to you by the Exxon Corporation." Instead it will say "Brought to you by Concerned Citizens for a Reasonable Environmental Policy" (or something similar). Then, only if you dig into it, will you find out that the latter "citizens' organization" is funded by a bunch of oil companies. It's much more difficult for an individual with no resources to form a front organization.
Laws like this one and the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision [wikipedia.org] may well deprive the individual citizen of what little voice they already have in politics.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
So you don't believe innocent until proven guilty is part of a healthy democracy and legal system then?
Re:I'm not Australian but... (Score:4, Funny)
A misquote (because my memory isn't what it used to be) from Hunt for Red October: "Son, I'm a politician. When I'm not kissing babies I'm stealing their lollipops."
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I'm not Australian but... (Score:4, Interesting)
No, I don’t.
If a cop says I turned left at an intersection where there’s a sign saying “no left turn”, I’m guilty unless proven innocent. They don’t even have to reveal their tape footage from the car showing whether or not I actually did.
Innocent until proven guilty is a pathetic lie that’s maintained to placate us.
Re: (Score:2)
Then again, maybe the current legal system isn’t a healthy democracy anymore.
Re: (Score:2)
Easy to forget (Score:4, Insightful)
Time for outsiders to plunge in (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Time for outsiders to plunge in (Score:4, Insightful)
By 4chan you mean a bunch of nerdy teenagers?
Onoes what will they do!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/04/London_Anonymous_Scientology_protest_March_2008.jpg [wikimedia.org]
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/77/Anon_London_Feb10_Protesters.jpg [wikimedia.org]
And that was just London.
From wikipedia [wikipedia.org]:
On February 10, 2008, about 7,000 people protested in at least 100 cities worldwide.[8][53][54] Within 24 hours of the first protest, a search for "Scientology" and "protest" on Google Blog Search returned more than 4,000 results and more than 2,000 pictures on the image-sharing site Flickr.[54] Cities with turnouts of one hundred or more protesters included Adelaide,[55] Melbourne,[56] and Sydney,[57] Australia; Toronto,[58] Canada; London,[59][60]; Dublin[61]; Austin, Texas,[62] Dallas, Texas,[63] Boston, Massachusetts,[64] Clearwater, Florida,[65] and New York City, New York,[60] United States.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe 4Chan should get involved...
The problem with this is, no one would be able to recognize those statements as anything political.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
There was a Chanology raid in Sydney: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:COS_Raid_@_Sydney.jpg [wikipedia.org]
Enforceability (Score:4, Informative)
John Quiggin, a long-time blogger and Research Fellow in Economics and Political Science at the University of Queensland, doubted whether the laws were enforceable. "They can pass as draconian law as they like, but without the capacity to impose their own internet censorship it's going to be a dead lemon," he said. "Anyone who wants to can set up an anonymous blog. "It will be totally ineffectual with someone who sets up a Wordpress blog post in the US under a false name and publish whatever they want."
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, but would anyone read such a site? The Internet has a pretty bad SNR when it comes to politics, and Wordpress and other blog sites are notorious for their spam problems which makes it all the worse.
If you're saying something, then you want to be heard. If the politicians have forced anonymous speech down in to the same slums as spam, then even though it's not a fool-proof system they've still won in curtailing effective anonymous speech.
Re:Enforceability (Score:5, Insightful)
That implies they care about universal enforcement of the law. They don't really care if someone whines about a traffic fine anonymously on the blog. No, they'll go after "particular" offenders, or they'll use it to punish dissidents they particularly dislike after already having them so they have something that can stick. That's how modern democracy works, after all--enough laws and you'll be able to nail someone on something eventually.
Re:Enforceability (Score:4, Insightful)
You seem to be forgetting the Great Australian Firewall that the Aussies are working on implementing:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_Australia
As soon as the government can shut down your Wordpress blog by blacklisting it, you'll either have to give up political speech entirely or opt for a non-anonymous blog.
Common Sense (Score:2)
Thomas Paine would not approve.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe, but Max Payne would do something about it.
What the fuck (Score:5, Informative)
Australians, ever competitive (Score:2)
Obviously they've been stung into action by those pesky Pommies' headlong rush into totalitarianism, and as usual are pulling out all the stops to get one over on their old rival...
Comment removed (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't talk politics at work. I get enough pointless argument at work just doing the daily job; I have no desire or need to chum for more.
I don't use Facebook, MySpace, or any other online forum under my real name. Without packet capture, good luck tying me to those pseudonyms.
I'm not sure I even visibly espouse any particular political flavor under those 'nyms, other than generally being in favor of personal liberty over governmental convenience. I guess that just means that since I don't self-identify a
system (Score:4, Insightful)
hopefully both major parties will get a reminder come the polls on March 20.
That's some heavy stuff you're smoking there, you sure it's legal?
The political system of the west is built to let blunders of this kind disappear. Because you can not vote on issues, only on parties. And if party X has 90% of your opinion, you're going to vote for it rather than party Y which only has 60% of your opinions.
Until something like that Pirate Parties "liquid democracy" becomes a reality, that's the way it is and the major parties can pretty much fuck you in the ass as long as they make sure you don't have any realistic alternatives to vote for instead.
Re: (Score:2)
Not in the USA. We vote for individuals, not Parties. Which is why, for instance, La has one Democratic Senator and one Republican Senator, elected independently in two separate statewide votes.
If we're of a conservative bend, and our local Dem is conservative, he'll be as likely to get the vote as the Republican (assuming that the Republican is conservative - not all of t
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
For Republican/Democrat, that’s generally true, but a person who identifies himself or herself as “Conservative” will tend to vote on issues, not party – jumping to a third-party or even a Democrat candidate in the rare case when the Democrat is more conservative.
The same could somewhat be said of people who identify as “Liberal”, but there are fewer of them, and the Democrat candidate is almost always the most liberal so it basically translates to an automatic Democrat v
Re: (Score:2)
Because you can not vote on issues, only on parties.
Imagine a parliament filled only with independents. Then having to form a true consensus about an issue with a real debate!
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
In the US, you're fucked. In pretty much all European countries, large parties grow and shrink even though they rarely fall completely. For example, here in Norway in 2001 Ap acted like an ass and went from 35% to 24% in the election. In 2005 Høyre lost 7.1% and FrP gained 7.5%, shifting which was the biggest right wing party.
It may not shift the overall balance, but US politics would be way different if they had to fear the "New democrats" or "New republicans" taking their seats, not just the antich
Fortunately, the U.S. SCOTUS Disagrees (Score:2)
"Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority."
Of course, Scalia and Thomas disagreed.
australia has been stuck in the antipodes too long (Score:5, Funny)
we need to tow australia up to the northern hemisphere, give it someone to talk to and play with. it's kind of getting cabin fever down there in the nothingness and kind of losing its mind. all it has to talk to is new zealand, and we all know what that's worth
WTF is with Australia lately? (Score:3, Interesting)
Easily avoided? (Score:2)
Law to be repealed (Score:2, Informative)
Next (Score:3, Insightful)
Next up: no more anonymous voting. As Attorney-General Michael Atkinson might say:
How is this different... (Score:3, Insightful)
How is this different from laws we have in the US where we require people in public protests to be "unmasked"? Example: The KKK used to do their marches in the full hoods and robes. states started passing laws requiring their faces to be revealed during their marches in order to "shame them" into not doing it. Those laws were ruled constitutional because their right to speak is impinged in any way shape or form.
I'm failing to see how this is different. A right to speak is not the same as a right to speak anonymously.
(Unintended?) Consequences (Score:2)
This law is problematic even beyond the restriction to anonymous speech. By setting specific record keeping requirements to make speech not be considered anonymous, they can label any kind of casual speech as anonymous. Then they can supress it.
Outlaw this (Score:2)
Updated Lyrics (Score:3, Funny)
In South Australia I was born
Heave away. Haul away!
South Australia round Cape Horn
We're banned in South Australia
Haul away you rolling king
Heave away! Haul away!
But never will you hear me sing -
We're banned in South Australia
Circumvent Free Speach with Liability (Score:3, Insightful)
It saddens me to see Australia pass such legislation. An idea is an idea regardless of name and postal code, some of those ideas are true honest sentiments that might contradict public perception; and thus either open eyes, be repulsive but true, and outright offense yet true still. Some times, the best way to change the world, is to get your idea out there, and while some might wish to hold you accountable, the time they waste searching for you your concept is sinking in to the rest of the people. On the other hand, if they immediately catch you, they can bash you on the media effectively diverting the public from the issue you might have raised.
Whistleblowers tend to come out in times like these. It's my philosophy that the truth only manifests in extreme situations. And no matter how much we might stomach the ignoble practices of one potential politician, the moment they stand to get elected into a seat of power is such an extreme that often compels an objector to speaking out. Sometimes these issues to be made known are offensive in nature, or of great concern... yet real enough warranting anonymity of the whistleblower not only from the accused but from public backlash.
Anonymity veils a persons inhibitions and permits more honest dialogue. Sometimes we dislike what we hear from anonymity, and challenge the person such as 'Oh, hiding behind a computer screen, I'd kick your ass you say that to my face' is really just... 'I can't convince you of irrational beliefs so I'll threaten pain for you to object to them, and if you rescind or silence, then morons around me will applaud me as if I'm correct'.
Requiring a name and postal code is attempting to achieve accountability, which is a detriment to free speech. With accountability comes liability, should your free speech anger the wrong person. With liability, there is no free speech. It should suffice alone, that the message be known to have originated within the jurisdiction of the topic. With the world being so small due to the Internet, perhaps originating IP address is to restricted for Australian political issues, perhaps an Australian is in Belgium when he rightfully voices his opinion. But, no politician might object to praise from any source, perhaps even from his enemy. International praise is coveted I assume, so if I compliment Vladimir Putin as an American, I think it's safe to assume he might accept the compliment, the International approval, the Global approval, even though I'm not a Russian constituent. If willing to accept praise, then be prepared to hear criticism as well; picking and choosing in this regard is simply foolish for every criticism simply provides the conditions for future praise.
I think Australia would do well to undo this law.
gamers4croydon; Atkinson bans computer games also (Score:3, Informative)
SA Attorney-General Michael Atkinson has been the driving force behind moves to ban certain computer games from Australia for a long time. This dude is just bad news.
There is an organisation called Gamers for Croydon, who are locked in a feud with him him and his policies.
gamers4croydon, have a political candidate who will be standing against Atkinson for the seat of Croydon (in Adelaide) next election.
If your interested in the politics of games, checkout their website at http://www.gamers4croydon.org/ [gamers4croydon.org]
They have a steam group also ;)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Re: (Score:2)
You may have meant that as a joke, but I'm afraid this is a lot more insightful than it is funny, sadly.
Won't get fooled again (Score:2)
Here come the new laws
Same as the old laws
-The Who
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It doesn't matter who says what is being said. Ideas live and die on their own merits, regardless of who supports the ideas. Saying otherwise is an ad hominem fallacy.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Why don't we just publish everyone's votes after the next election? After all, people should be prepared to put their name to their opinion shouldn't they?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This law doesn't stop anyone expressing any political opinion they like. All it does is require that they are prepared to put their name to it.
You don't need laws criminalizing political speech to politically intimidate your opponents. Sometimes, merely letting one's name known is quite enough [wikipedia.org]. And note that, while this is an extreme case, there are other, milder forms of intimidation - for example, how about getting fired for holding a particular political view, or shunned by your local society?
We absolutely need anonymous political speech for the exact same reasons why we need the secret ballot, for democracy to be anything but a sham.