GalaxyFacts Chat Room

[Guest]

Steven, Your insistence on a writer or posters identification is a direct contradiction to the framers of our Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the First Amendment which protect Freedom of Speech and Freedom Of The Press. Your intolerant position is one of erasing 270 years of American history. The Federalist Papers were similar attempts to prohibit anonymous political speech and anonymous publishing’s. Much like the anonymous writers on GalaxyFacts who you despise hen they were called the Anti -Federalists. Have you conveniently forgotten that you were a member of GUOG < The Concerned Unit Owners Group> until you became a director? Have you forgotten the issues and the merits of the complaint that you so proudly championed, supported and endorsed as a member of that group? Many of them dealt with similar if not exact issues as just mentioned. Your thought process is flawed if you really take the position that anonymity leads to counter productive discourse. How narrow minded can you are? You were elected to serve the populace of the total Association. For you now to manufacture and install a condition precedent on how exactly you will receive and communicate with a member of the association weather named or anonymous is an attempt to deflect and not answer a legitimate unit owners question/issue and a direct statement that you disagree with this persons views of how he or she chooses to communicate with the Board of Directors or management. Your job is not to interfere and stifle ideas. Who are you to tell people how to communicate? Your reasoning is rigid and utterly absurd. You should just deal with the greater underlying issues, although some I understand can have more substance than others. Barbara Tokay played by your rules and sent two signed letters to the directors and received no response. A seasoned director/manager tries to diffuse explosive issues. You instead create more smoke and fire with your ridiculous procedures, rules, standards conditions which usually waste time and resolve nothing. Luane appeared three times in open sessions and signed letters and still no responses. How can you really believe that people trust you? Your choice of words used to describe anonymous posters as terrorizing the populace with fraudulent, fabricated, thin air charges with nearly psychotic hallucinations and wearing white shirts over their heads is another example why people choose to remain anonymous. Your words lack true leadership. They sound like they are coming from a person who is angry, paranoid and schizophrenic. Why would any sane person want to have you judge what is warranted and what is not? Who knows exactly how sane you are? Who made you greater than the Constitution? Since when have you of all people become the judge? You lost credibility with many of the unit owners. You say you have a problem in that you do not have any confidence in an opinion where the writer fails to attach their name. This is your problem. Can you understand that many people are self content and do not need to be graded, judged, flagged, or monitored by someone like you who has this need and is full of himself. You must reconsider your words of calling the Right To Reason group 100 fanatics. Do you really think this creates progress and harmony in the community? Your welcome is wearing thin.
Authored by Happily Anonymous

[stevenbraitman]

What part of the idea that I do not respond to anonymous posts do you not understand? I assign the weight (mass) of a photon (i.e., ZERO) to your post and its assertions. That's because you choose to remain anonymous for no reason that I deem legitimate. And since presumably you would like to persuade me to respond, I get to decide what's a legitimate reason for anonymity.
I do thank you for your insults though. Our sages teach that when a person is publicly insulted or humiliated and (s)he does not respond in a similar manner, the Heavenly Court is very much more inclined to forgive the person's shortcomings and misdeeds. As this is our month of preparation for Judgment, and I have a depressingly enormous inventory of shortcomings, your insults give me "chizuk" (loosely translated, spiritual strength and encouragement) in my process of self-reflection to face my shortcomings, in the knowledge that by not responding to your insults in kind, I at least have something to help counter-balance my grave shortcomings.
Now for the substance of your points regarding anonymity, which is the only issue I will respond to, since I do seek to influence you to value your own opinions sufficiently to attach your name to them.
First, I do acknowledge that you do have a "right" to anonymity on this message board, in the sense that mikeee owns this message board and he permits anonymous posts (and i disagree with him, so what else is new?). But you have no power to force me to respond to your anonymous posts, only the power of influence. And your reasoning with regard to anonymity falls very (very) far short of persuasive.
I do not understand your attempt at connecting Anonymity and Freedom of Speech. Please explain. (your recounting of American history indicates that you would profit from a deeper understanding of the principles that are the foundation of our American values). You have Freedom of Speech. I have made no attempt to ban, via the Power of the State, anonymous speech. Instead, I exercise my personal choice when I refuse to respond to the substance of your assertions while you remain anonymous. My refusal has no effect on your freedom to speak. And you have no right to a response from me, you have no power to force me to respond. QED.
I was elected to serve the unit owners and the Association overall. I judge that I can serve those interests more effectively by focusing my limited time on the opinions that have merit. And MY minimum standard for merit (a necessary, but not sufficient, condition) is revealing one's identity, unless there is a legitimate reason for anonymity, which you have refused to provide. Sooooo, you continue to have a right to anonymity here. And I have a right to ignore your opinions, which I am doing. And you have a right to work to unseat me if you feel that my position on anonymity warrants my removal from the board.
You ask "Who are you to tell people how to communicate?"
My name is Steven Braitman. And your question is meaningless. I don't tell people how to communicate. I tell them how to communicate if they seek to receive a response from me.
"That's MY prerogative."
_________________
steven braitman
member, galaxy board of directors

[Guest]

[stevenbraitman]

from the Amidah, the daily "Standing Prayer" :
My G-d, please guard my tongue from evil and my lips from speaking deceit. To all those who curse me, may my soul be like dust. . . ."
_________________
steven braitman
member, galaxy board of directors

[Guest]

[Mike]

[admin]

[stevenbraitman]

link sent by Happily Anonymous for me to post for you to read Steve

http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/93-986.ZC1.html

steven braitman responds:
No, i will not read the material on "Happily Anonymous" 's link. I have no reason to believe that there is anything of merit to read on that link. On the contrary, my a priori estimate is that the link is valueless--as I have indicated (now for the umpteenth time), "Happily Anonymous" has provided this link anonymously, demonstrating his/her infinitesimal respect the material on the link, and for his/her opinion. Why would I show more regard for "Happily Anonymous" 's opinion than (s)/he does?!
_________________
steven braitman
member, galaxy board of directors

[Guest]

JOSEPH McINTYRE, executor of estate of MARGARET McINTYRE, deceased, PETITIONER v. OHIO ELECTIONS COMMISSION
on writ of certiorari to the supreme court of ohio

[April 19, 1995]

Justice Thomas , concurring in the judgment.

The First Amendment states that the government "shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press." U. S. Const., Amdt. 1. When interpreting the Free Speech and Press Clauses, we must be guided by their original meaning, for "[t]he Constitution is a written instrument. As such its meaning does not alter. That which it meant when adopted, it means now." South Carolina v. United States, 199 U.S. 437, 448 (1905). We have long recognized that the meaning of the Constitution "must necessarily depend on the words of the constitution [and] the meaning and intention of the convention which framed and proposed it for adoption and ratification to the conventions . . . in the several states." Rhode Island v. Massachusetts, 12 Pet. 657, 721 (1838). See also INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919, 959 (1983). We should seek the original understanding when we interpret the Speech and Press Clauses, just as we do when we read the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment. When the Framers did not discuss the precise question at issue, we have turned to "what history reveals was the contemporaneous understanding of [the Establishment Clause's] guarantees." Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668, 673 (1984). "[T]he line we must draw between the permissible and the impermissible is one which accords with history and faithfully reflects the understanding of the Founding Fathers." Abington School Dist. v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203, 294 (1963) (Brennan, J., concurring); see also Lee v. Weisman, 505 U. S. ___ (1992) (slip op., at 2-3) (Scalia, J., dissenting).

Unfortunately, we have no record of discussions of anonymous political expression either in the First Congress, which drafted the Bill of Rights, or in the state ratifying conventions. Thus, our analysis must focus on the practices and beliefs held by the Founders concerning anonymous political articles and pamphlets. As an initial matter, we can safely maintain that the leaflets at issue in this case implicate the freedom of the press. When the Framers thought of the press, they did not envision the large, corporate newspaper and television establishments of our modern world. Instead, they employed the term "the press" to refer to the many independent printers who circulated small newspapers or published a writer's pamphlets for a fee. See generally B. Bailyn & J. Hench, The Press & the American Revolution (1980); L. Levy, Emergence of a Free Press(1985); B. Bailyn, The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution (1967). "It was in this form--as pamphlets--that much of the most important and characteristic writing of the American Revolution occurred." 1 B. Bailyn, Pamphlets of the American Revolution 3 (1965). This practice continued during the struggle for ratification. See, e.g., Pamphlets on the Constitution of the United States (P. Ford, ed. 1888). Regardless of whether one designates the right involved here as one of press or one of speech, however, it makes little difference in terms of our analysis, which seeks to determine only whether the First Amendment, as originally understood, protects anonymous writing.

There is little doubt that the Framers engaged in anonymous political writing. The essays in the Federalist Papers, published under the pseudonym of "Publius," are only the most famous example of the outpouring of anonymous political writing that occurred during the ratification of the Constitution. Of course, the simple fact that the Framers engaged in certain conduct does not necessarily prove that they forbade its prohibition by the government. See post, at 4 (Scalia, J., dissenting). In this case, however, the historical evidence indicates that Founding era Americans opposed attempts to require that anonymous authors reveal their identities on the ground that forced disclosure violated the "freedom of the press."

For example, the earliest and most famous American experience with freedom of the press, the 1735 Zenger trial, centered around anonymous political pamphlets. The case involved a printer, John Peter Zenger, who refused to reveal the anonymous authors of published attacks on the Crown governor of New York. When the governor and his council could not discover the identity of the authors, they prosecuted Zenger himself for seditious libel. See J. Alexander, A Brief Narrative of the Case and Trial of John Peter Zenger 9-19 (S. Katzed. 1972). Although the case set the colonies afire for its example of a jury refusing to convict a defendant of seditious libel against Crown authorities, it also signified at an early moment the extent to which anonymity and the freedom of the press were intertwined in the early American mind.

During the Revolutionary and Ratification periods, the Framers' understanding of the relationship between anonymity and freedom of the press became more explicit. In 1779, for example, the Continental Congress attempted to discover the identity of an anonymous article in the Pennsylvania Packet signed by the name "Leonidas." Leonidas, who actually was Dr. Benjamin Rush, had attacked the members of Congress for causing inflation throughout the States and for engaging in embezzlement and fraud. 13 Letters of Delegates to Congress 1774-1789, p. 141 n. 1 (G. Gawalt & R. Gephart eds. 1986). Elbridge Gerry, a delegate from Massachusetts, moved to haul the printer of the newspaper before Congress to answer questions concerning "Leonidas." Several members of Congress then rose to oppose Gerry's motion on the ground that it invaded the freedom of the press. Merriweather Smith of Virginia rose, quoted from the offending article with approval, and then finished with a declaration that "[w]hen the liberty of the Press shall be restrained . . . the liberties of the People will be at an end." Henry Laurens, Notes of Debates, July 3, 1779, id., at 139. Supporting Smith, John Penn of North Carolina argued that the writer "no doubt had good designs," and that "[t]he liberty of the Press ought not to be restrained." Ibid. In the end, these arguments persuaded the assembled delegates, who "sat mute" in response to Gerry's motion. Id., at 141. Neither the printer nor Dr. Rush ever appeared before Congress to answer for their publication. D. Teeter, Press Freedom and the Public Printing: Pennsylvania, 1775-83, 45 Journalism Q. 445, 451 (1968).

At least one of the state legislatures shared Congress' view that the freedom of the press protected anonymous writing. Also in 1779, the upper house of the New Jersey State Legislature attempted to punish the author of a satirical attack on the Governor and the College of New Jersey (now Princeton) who had signed his work "Cincinnatus." R. Hixson, Isaac Collins: A Quaker Printer in 18th Century America 95 (1968). Attempting to enforce the crime of seditious libel, the state Legislative Council ordered Isaac Collins--the printer and editor of the newspaper in which the article had appeared--to reveal the author's identity. Refusing, Collins declared: " `Were I to comply . . . I conceive I should betray the trust reposed in me, and be far from acting as a faithful guardian of the Liberty of the Press.' " Id., at 96. Apparently, the State Assembly agreed that anonymity was protected by the freedom of the press, as it voted to support the editor and publisher by frustrating the Council's orders. Id., at 95.

By 1784, the same governor of New Jersey, William Livingston, was at work writing anonymous articles that defended the right to publish anonymously as part of the freedom of the press. Under the pseudonym "Scipio," Livingston wrote several articles attacking the Legislature's failure to lower taxes, and he accused a state officer of stealing or losing state funds during the British invasion of New Jersey. Id., at 107-109; Scipio, Letter to the Printer, Feb. 24, 1784, The New Jersey Gazette. Responding to the allegations, the officer called upon Scipio "to avow your publication, give up your real name." S. Tucker, To Scipio, Mar. 2, 1784, The New Jersey Gazette. Livingston replied with a four part series defending "the Liberty of the Press." Although Livingston at first defended anonymity because it encouraged authors to discuss politics without fear of reprisal, he ultimately invoked the liberty of the press as the guardian for anonymous political writing. "I hope [Tucker] is not seriously bent upon a total subversion of our political system," Scipio wrote. "And pray may not a man, in a free country, convey thro' the press his sentiments on publick grievances . . . without being obliged to send a certified copy of the baptismal register to prove his name." Scipio, On the Liberty of the Press IV, Apr. 26, 1784, The New Jersey Gazette.

To be sure, there was some controversy among newspaper editors over publishing anonymous articles and pamphlets. But this controversy was resolved in a manner that indicates that the freedom of the press protected an author's anonymity. The tempest began when a Federalist, writing anonymously himself, expressed fear that "emissaries" of "foreign enemies" would attempt to scuttle the Constitution by "fill[ing] the press with objections" against the proposal. Boston Independent Chronicle, Oct. 4, 1787, 13 Documentary History of the Ratification of the Constitution 315 (J. Kaminski & G. Saladino eds. 1981) (hereinafter Documentary History). He called upon printers to refrain from publishing when the author "chooses to remain concealed." Ibid. Benjamin Russell, the editor of the prominent Federalist newspaper the Massachusetts Centinel, immediately adopted a policy of refusing to publish Anti Federalist pieces unless the author provided his identity to be "handed to the publick, if required." Massachusetts Centinel, Oct. 10, 1787, id., at 312, 315-316. A few days later, the Massachusetts Gazette announced that it would emulate the example set by the Massachusetts Centinel. Massachusetts Gazette, Oct. 16, 1787, id., at 317. In the same issue, the Gazette carried an article claiming that requiring an anonymous writer to leave his name with the printer, so that anyone who wished to know his identity could be informed, "appears perfectly reasonable, and is perfectly consistent with the liberty of the press." A Citizen, Massachusetts Gazette, Oct. 16, 1787, id., at 316. Federalists expressed similar thoughts in Philadelphia. See A Philadelphia Mechanic, Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, Oct. 29, 1787, id., at 318-319; Galba, Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, Oct. 31, 1787, id., at 319. The Jewel, Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, Nov. 2, 1787, id., at 320.

Ordinarily, the fact that some Founding era editors as a matter of policy decided not to publish anonymous articles would seem to shed little light upon what the framers thought the government could do. The widespread criticism raised by the Anti Federalists, however, who were the driving force behind the demand for a Bill of Rights, indicates that they believed the freedom of the press to include the right to author anonymous political articles and pamphlets. [n.1] That most other Americans shared this understanding is reflected in the Federalists' hasty retreat before the withering criticism of their assault on the liberty of the press.

Opposition to Russell's declaration centered in Philadelphia. Three Philadelphia papers published the "Citizen" piece that had run in the Massachusetts Gazette. Id., at 318-320. [n.2] In response, one of the leading Anti Federalist writers, the "Federal Farmer," attacked Russell's policy: "What can be the views of those gentlemen in Boston, who countenanced the Printers in shutting up the press against a fair and free investigation of this important system in the usual way?" Letter From the Federal Farmer No. 5, Oct. 13, 1787, 2 The Complete Anti Federalist 254 (H. Storing ed. 1981). Another Anti Federalist, "Philadelphiensis," also launched a substantial attack on Russell and his defenders for undermining the freedom of the press. "In this desperate situation of affairs . . . the friends of this despotic scheme of government, were driven to the last and only alternative from which there was any probability of success; namely, the abolition of the freedom of the Press." Philadelphiensis, Essay I, Independent Gazetteer, Nov. 7, 1787, 3 id., at 102. In Philadelphiensis' eyes, Federalist attempts to suppress the Anti Federalist press by requiring the disclosure of authors' identities only foreshadowed the oppression permitted by the new Constitution. "Here we see pretty plainly through [the Federalists'] excellent regulation of the press, how things are to be carried on after the adoption of the new constitution." Id., at 103. According to Philadelphiensis, Federalist policies had already ruined freedom in Massachusetts: "In Boston the liberty of the press is now completely abolished; and hence all other privileges and rights of the people will in a short time be destroyed." Id., at 104.

Not limited to Philadelphia, the Anti Federalist attack was repeated widely throughout the States. In New York, one writer exclaimed that the Federalist effort to suppress anonymity would "reverse the important doctrine of the freedom of the press," whose "truth" was "universally acknowledged." Detector, New York Journal, Oct. 25, 1787, in Documentary History 318. "Detector" proceeded to proclaim that that Russell's policy was "the introduction of this first trait of slavery into your country!" Ibid. Responding to the Federalist editorial policy, a Rhode Island Anti Federalist wrote: "The Liberty of the Press, or the Liberty which every Person in the United States at present enjoys . . . is a Privilege of infinite Importance . . . for which . . . we have fought and bled," and that the attempt by "our aristocratical Gentry, to have every Person's Name published who should write against the proposed Federal Constitution, has given many of us a just Alarm." Argus, Providence United States Chronicle, Nov. 8, 1787, id., at 320-321. Edward Powars, editor of the Anti Federalist Boston American Herald, proclaimed that his pages would remain "free and open to all parties." Boston American Herald, Oct. 15, 1787, id., at 316. In the Boston Independent Chronicle of Oct. 18, 1787, "Solon" accused Russell of attempting to undermine a "freedom and independence of sentiments" which "should never be checked in a free country" and was "so essential to the existance of free Governments." Id., at 313.

The controversy over Federalist attempts to prohibit anonymous political speech is significant for several reasons. First, the Anti Federalists clearly believed the right to author and publish anonymous political articles and pamphlets was protected by the liberty of the press. Second, although printers' editorial policies did not constitute state action, the Anti Federalists believed that the Federalists were merely flexing the governmental powers they would fully exercise upon the Constitution's ratification. Third, and perhaps most significantly, it appears that the Federalists agreed with the Anti Federalist critique. In Philadelphia, where opposition to the ban was strongest, there is no record that any newspaper adopted the non anonymity policy, nor that of any city or State aside from Russell's Massachusetts Centinel and the Federalist Massachusetts Gazette. Moreover, these two papers' bark was worse than their bite. In the face of widespread criticism, it appears that Russell retreated from his policy and, as he put it, " `readily' " reprinted several anonymous Federalist and Anti Federalist essays to show that claims that he had suppressed freedom of the press " `had not any foundation in truth.' " 13 Documentary History 313-314. Likewise, the Massachusetts Gazette refused to release the names of Anti Federalist writers when requested. Ibid. When Federalist attempts to ban anonymity are followed by a sharp, widespread Anti Federalist defense in the name of the freedom of the press, and then by an open Federalist retreat on the issue, I must conclude that both Anti Federalists and Federalists believed that the freedom of the press included the right to publish without revealing the author's name.

The historical record is not as complete or as full as I would desire. For example, there is no evidence that, after the adoption of the First Amendment, the Federal Government attempted to require writers to attach their names to political documents. Nor do we have any indication that the federal courts of the early Republic would have squashed such an effort as a violation of the First Amendment. The understanding described above, however, when viewed in light of the Framers' universal practice of publishing anonymous articles and pamphlets, indicates that the Framers shared the belief that such activity was firmly part of the freedom of the press. It is only an innovation of modern times that has permitted the regulation of anonymous speech.

The large quantity of newspapers and pamphlets the Framers produced during the various crises of their generation show the remarkable extent to which the Framers relied upon anonymity. During the break with Great Britain, the revolutionaries employed pseudonyms both to conceal their identity from Crown authorities and to impart a message. Often, writers would choose names to signal their point of view or to invoke specific classical and modern "crusaders in an age long struggle against tyranny." A. Schlesinger, Prelude to Independence 35 (1958). Thus, leaders of the struggle for independence would adopt descriptive names such as-Common Sense," a "Farmer," or "A True Patriot," or historical ones such as "Cato" (a name used by many to refer to the Roman Cato and to Cato's letters), or "Mucius Scaevola." Id., at xii xiii. The practice was even more prevalent during the great outpouring of political argument and commentary that accompanied the ratification of the Constitution. Besides "Publius," prominent Federalists signed their articles and pamphlets with names such as "An American Citizen," "Marcus," "A Landholder," "Americanus"; Anti Federalists replied with the pseudonyms "Cato," "Centinel," "Brutus," the "Federal Farmer," and "The Impartial Examiner." See generally 1-2 Debate on the Constitution (B. Bailyn ed. 1993). The practice of publishing one's thoughts anonymously or under pseudonym was so widespread that only two major Federalist or Anti Federalist pieces appear to have been signed by their true authors, and they may have had special reasons to do so. [n.3]

If the practice of publishing anonymous articles and pamphlets fell into disuse after the Ratification, one might infer that the custom of anonymous political speech arose only in response to the unusual conditions of the 1776-1787 period. After all, the Revolution and the Ratification were not "elections," per se, either for candidates or for discrete issues. Records from the first federal elections indicate, however, that anonymous political pamphlets and newspaper articles remained the favorite medium for expressing views on candidates. In Pennsylvania, for example, writers for or against the Federalist and Anti Federalist candidates wrote under the names "Numa," "Pompilius," "A Friend to Agriculture, Trade, and Good Laws," "A Federal Centinel," a "Freeman," "Centinel," "A Real Patriot to All True Federalists," "A Mechanic," "Justice," "A German Federalist," and so on. See generally 1 Documentary History of the First Federal Elections 1788-1790, pp. 246-362 (M. Jensen & R. Becker eds. 1976). This appears to have been the practice in all of the major states of which we have substantial records today. See 1 id., at 446-464 (Massachusetts); 2 id., at 108-122, 175-229 (Maryland); 2 id., at 387-397 (Virginia); 3 id., at 204-216, 436-493 (New York). It seems that actual names were used rarely, and usually only by candidates who wanted to explain their positions to the electorate.

The use of anonymous writing extended to issues as well as candidates. The ratification of the Constitution was not the only issue discussed via anonymous writings in the press. James Madison and Alexander Hamilton, for example, resorted to pseudonyms in the famous "Helvidius" and "Pacificus" debates over President Washington's declaration of neutrality in the war between the British and French. See Hamilton, Pacificus No. 1, June 29, 1793, 15 Papers of Alexander Hamilton 33-43 (H. Syrett ed. 1969); Madison, Helvidius No. 1, Aug. 24, 1793, 15 Papers of James Madison 66-73 (T. Mason et al. eds. 1985). Anonymous writings continued in such Republican papers as the Aurora and Federalists organs such as the Gazette of the United States at least until the election of Thomas Jefferson. See generally, J. Smith, Freedom's Fetters (1956).

This evidence leads me to agree with the majority's result, but not its reasoning. The majority fails to seek the original understanding of the First Amendment, and instead attempts to answer the question in this case by resorting to three approaches. First, the majority recalls the historical practice of anonymous writing from Shakespeare's works to the Federalist Papers to Mark Twain. Ante, at 6-7, 23. Second, it finds that anonymous speech has an expressive value both to the speaker and to society that outweighs public interest in disclosure. Third, it finds that §3599.09(A) cannot survive strict scrutiny because it is a "content based" restriction on speech.

I cannot join the majority's analysis because it deviates from our settled approach to interpreting the Constitution and because it superimposes its modern theories concerning expression upon the constitutional text. Whether "great works of literature"--by Voltaire or George Eliot have been published anonymously should be irrelevant to our analysis, because it sheds no light on what the phrases "free speech" or "free press" meant to the people who drafted and ratified the First Amendment. Similarly, whether certain types of expression have "value" today has little significance; what is important is whether the Framers in 1791 believed anonymous speech sufficiently valuable to deserve the protection of the Bill of Rights. And although the majority faithfully follows our approach to "content based" speech regulations, we need not undertake this analysis when the original understanding provides the answer.

While, like Justice Scalia, I am loath to overturn a century of practice shared by almost all of the States, I believe the historical evidence from the framing outweighs recent tradition. When interpreting other provisions of the Constitution, this Court has believed itself bound by the text of the Constitution and by the intent of those who drafted and ratified it. It should hold itself to no less a standard when interpreting the Speech and Press Clauses. After reviewing the weight of the historical evidence, it seems that the Framers understood the First Amendment to protect an author's right to express his thoughts on political candidates or issues in an anonymous fashion. Because the majority has adopted an analysis that is largely unconnected to the Constitution's text and history, I concur only in the judgment.
Notes

1 The Anti Federalists recognized little difficulty in what today would be a state action problem, because they considered Federalist conduct in supporting the Constitution as a preview of the tyranny to come under the new Federal Government.

2 As noted earlier, several pieces in support appeared in the Federalist newspaper, the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer. They were immediately answered by two Anti Federalists in the Philadelphia Freeman's Journal. These Anti Federalists accused the Federalists of "preventing that freedom of enquiry which truth and honour never dreads, but which tyrants and tyranny could never endure." 13 Documentary History, at 317-318.

3 See Mason, Objections to the Constitution, Virginia Journal, Nov. 22, 1787, 1 Debate on the Constitution 345 (B. Bailyn ed. 1993); Martin, The Genuine Information, Maryland Gazette, Dec. 28, 1787-Feb. 8, 1788, id., at 631. Both men may have made an exception to the general practice because they both had attended the Philadelphia Convention, but had refused to sign the Constitution. As leaders of the fight against ratification, both men may have believed that they owed a personal explanation to their constituents of their decision not to sign.

[stevenbraitman]

I will debate you, in the GTCA Spa Lounge, in front of any unit owner or resident who wants to attend, on the following question:
"Should a person who seeks to influence the political opinion of others post his / her opinions anonymously?"
Here's my compromise--I will permit you to remain anonymous during the debate by your wearing a white sheet over your head.
_________________
steven braitman
member, galaxy board of directors

[admin]

http://business.lawyersandlaws.com/new-jersey/corporations-nonprof

Lawyers and Laws Home Page » Business » New Jersey » Corporations, Nonprofit.


15A:1-1. Short title; purposes; rules of construction; variation.
15A:1-2. Definitions.
15A:1-3. Application of act.
15A:1-4. Certain corporations organized under other acts; reincorporation or conversion.
15A:1-5. Authorization to corporations which could be or are organized under title 16 of the revised statutes to adopt provisions of this act without reincorporation.
15A:1-6. Reservation of power.
15A:1-7. Execution, filing and recording of documents.
15A:1-8. Repeal of prior acts.
15A:1-9. Notices; computation of time; effect of postage class used.
15A:1-10. Certificates and certified copies.
15A:2-1. Purposes.
15A:2-2. Corporate name of domestic or foreign corporation.
15A:2-3. Use of name other than actual corporate name.
15A:2-4. Reserved name.
15A:2-5. Registered name.
15A:2-6. Renewal of registered name.
15A:2-7. Incorporators.
15A:2-8. Certificate of incorporation.
15A:2-9. Organization meeting of board of trustees.
15A:2-10. Bylaws; making and altering.
15A:2-11. Bylaws and other powers in emergency.
15A:2-12. Chapter organizations.
15A:3-1. General powers.
15A:3-2. Ultra vires transactions.
15A:3-3. Contributions by corporations.
15A:3-4. Indemnification of trustees, officers and employees.
15A:3-5. Provisions relating to actions in the right of a corporation.
15A:3A-1 Definitions relative to criminal history background checks for employees, volunteers of youth serving organizations..
15A:3A-2 Youth serving organization request for criminal background check; costs..
15A:3A-3 Conditions under which person is disqualified from service..
15A:3A-4 Submissions, exchange of background check information..
15A:3A-5 Rules, regulations..
15A:4-1. Registered office and registered agent.
15A:4-2. Function of registered agent and office; service of process, notice or demand.
15A:4-3. Change of registered office or registered agent.
15A:4-4. Resignation of registered agent.
15A:4-5. Annual report to Secretary of State.
15A:5-1. Place of members' meetings.
15A:5-2. Annual or biennial meeting of members.
15A:5-3. Special meetings of members.
15A:5-4. Notice of members' meetings.
15A:5-5. Waiver of notice or of lapse of time.
15A:5-6. Action by members without a meeting.
15A:5-7. Fixing record date.
15A:5-8. Voting list.
15A:5-9. Quorum of members.
15A:5-10. Voting by members.
15A:5-11. Votes required.
15A:5-12. Greater or lesser voting requirements.
15A:5-13. Memberships held or controlled by the corporation not voted or counted.
15A:5-14. Memberships held by another corporation.
15A:5-15. Memberships held by fiduciaries.
15A:5-16. Memberships held jointly or as tenants in common.
15A:5-17. Voting of pledged memberships.
15A:5-18. Proxy voting.
15A:5-19. Agreements as to voting; provision in certificate of incorporation as to control of trustees.
15A:5-20. Elections of trustees; cumulative voting.
15A:5-21. Selection of inspectors.
15A:5-22. Duties of inspectors.
15A:5-23. Review of elections by superior court.
15A:5-24. Books and records; right of inspection.
15A:5-25. Liabilities of members.
15A:6-1. Board of trustees.
15A:6-2. Number of trustees.
15A:6-3. Term of trustees.
15A:6-4. Classification of trustees; restriction of right to choose trustees.
15A:6-5. Vacancies and newly created trusteeships.
15A:6-6. Removal of trustees.
15A:6-7. Quorum of board of trustees and committees; vote required; action of trustees without a meeting.
15A:6-8. Effect of common trusteeships and trustees' personal interest.
15A:6-9. Executive committee; other committees.
15A:6-10. Place and notice of trustees' meetings.
15A:6-11. Loans to officers or employees.
15A:6-12. Liability of trustees in certain cases.
15A:6-13. Liability of trustees; presumption of assent to action taken at a meeting.
15A:6-14. Standard of care; liability of trustees; reliance on corporate records.
15A:6-15. Officers.
15A:6-16. Removal and resignation of officers; filling of vacancies.
15A:6-17. Bonds; facsimile signatures and seals.
15A:7-1. Certificates or other written evidence of membership.
15A:7-2. Restrictions on transfer of memberships.
15A:8-1. Employee benefit plans.
15A:8-2. Formulation of plans.
15A:8-3. Amendment or termination of plans.
15A:8-4. Trust funds for employees; creation; maintenance and administration.
15A:8-5. Continuation of trust; law against perpetuities inapplicable.
15A:9-1. Amendment of certificate of incorporation.
15A:9-2. Procedure to amend certificate of incorporation.
15A:9-3. Class voting on amendments.
15A:9-4. Certificate of amendment.
15A:9-5. Restated certificate of incorporation.
15A:9-6. Abandonment of amendment or restated certificate.
15A:10-1. Procedure for merger.
15A:10-2. Procedure for consolidation.
15A:10-3. Approval by corporation not having members entitled to vote.
15A:10-4. Approval by members.
15A:10-5. Certificate of merger or consolidation.
15A:10-6. Effect of merger or consolidation.
15A:10-7. Merger or consolidation of domestic and foreign corporations.
15A:10-8. Abandonment of merger or consolidation.
15A:10-9. Acquisition of shares or assets.
15A:10-10. Sale or other disposition of assets in regular course of activities and mortgage or pledge of assets.
15A:10-11. Sale or other disposition of assets other than in regular course of activities.
15A:11-1. Limitations on rights of dissenting members.
15A:12-1. Methods of dissolution.
15A:12-2. Dissolution before commencing activities.
15A:12-3. Dissolution without a meeting of members.
15A:12-4. Dissolution pursuant to action of board and members.
15A:12-5. Dissolution pursuant to action of board.
15A:12-6. Dissolution pursuant to provision in certificate of incorporation.
15A:12-7. Dissolution upon expiration of period of duration.
15A:12-8. Plan of dissolution and disposition of assets.
15A:12-9. Disposition of unclaimed assets.
15A:12-10. Certificate of dissolution; contents; approval.
15A:12-11. Dissolution in action brought by the Attorney General.
15A:12-12. Involuntary dissolution; other remedies.
15A:12-13. Discontinuance of action or special proceeding.
15A:12-14. Effective time of dissolution.
15A:12-15. Effect of dissolution.
15A:12-16. Revocation of dissolution proceedings.
15A:12-17. Effect of revocation of dissolution.
15A:12-18. Notice to creditors; filing claims.
15A:12-19. Barring of claims of creditors.
15A:12-20. Disposition of rejected claims.
15A:12-21. Jurisdiction of the superior court.
15A:12-22. Judgment of dissolution; filing copy.
15A:12-23. Dissolution upon liquidation.
15A:13-1. Holding and conveying real estate.
15A:13-2. Application of act to foreign corporations.
15A:13-3. Admission of foreign corporation.
15A:13-4. Application for certificate of authority.
15A:13-5. Effect of certificate of authority.
15A:13-6. Amended certificate of authority.
15A:13-7. Change of name by foreign corporation.
15A:13-8. Withdrawal of foreign corporation.
15A:13-9. Termination of existence of foreign corporation.
15A:13-10. Revocation of certificate of authority; issuance of certificate of revocation.
15A:13-11. Conducting activities without certificate of authority.
15A:13-12. Injunction against foreign corporation.
15A:13-13. Vesting of title to real property upon merger or consolidation of foreign corporations.
15A:14-1. Definitions.
15A:14-2. Jurisdiction of the superior court; appointment of receiver.
15A:14-3. Multiple receivers.
15A:14-4. Title to corporate property and franchises.
15A:14-5. Powers of receivers; general.
15A:14-6. Powers of receiver; contempt of court.
15A:14-7. Powers of receiver; sale of property free of encumbrances.
15A:14-8. Rights of debtors; setoff; counterclaim.
15A:14-9. Payment or delivery to corporation.
15A:14-10. Fraudulent transfers.
15A:14-11. Fraudulent transfers; continued.
15A:14-12. Fraudulent transfers; continued.
15A:14-13. Liens by legal process.
15A:14-14. Preferences.
15A:14-15. Notice to creditors.
15A:14-16. Claims; presentation; approval or rejection.
15A:14-17. Claims; jury trial.
15A:14-18. Review of receiver's actions.
15A:14-19. Discontinuance of receivership action.
15A:14-20. Allowances to receiver and others; costs and expenses.
15A:14-21. Distribution of assets; priorities.
15A:14-22. Judgment of dissolution.
15A:14-23. Reorganization under act of congress; "plan of reorganization" defined.
15A:14-24. Reorganization under act of congress; implementation of plan of reorganization.
15A:14-25. Reorganization under act of congress; certificates.
15A:14-26. Reorganization under act of congress; powers and duties of state instrumentalities.
15A:15-1 Filing fees of the State Treasurer.
15A:15-2 Additional miscellaneous fees.
15A:16-1. Acts saved from repeal.
15A:16-2. Acts repealed.




LawyersandLaws.com provides articles and selections from laws about entities like corporations, partnerships and limited liability companies. We also provide information on business transactions, employment law, and laws affecting different kinds of business. Learn what entity might be best for you and how to legally conduct your business.

[Guest]

[Mike]

[Gina Riggi]

Steve, would you REALLY BE ABLE TO DEBATE ANYONE IN THE SPA LOUNGE?!!!!!!!

Would you pay the $500.00 rental fee for the spa usage? Or would you be given special privilages as a director to use it for free?

Lucky you!!! I guess we lowly owners don't get the privilage of using the spa to hold a meeting unless we pay the $500.00 fee.

And even though we already pay to maintain the spa in our monthly mnt. if we want to call a meeting for a debate we are forced to pay $500.00 unlike the privilaged fee, i.e. board, committee and club members who can use it for free.

Where is the fairness in that?

[Guest]