It's not a matter of aliases, rather anonymity. Google will allow you to
use a well known alias. What they won't let you be is anonymous. It makes
Google+ less useful in seeking redress of grievances from your elected
representatives.
The forum has limited your First Amendment rights which
isn't significant in and of itself other than all other online venues such as
newspaper comments appear to also bind you identity to at least an email
account.
You have a Constitutional right to anonymity for political purposes
(Talley v. California and McIntyre v. Ohio Election Commission, “Anonymity is a
shield from the tyranny of the majority.”)
The issue becomes what happens
when there are no venues possible for anonymity, because your speech has been
completely commercialized? In this case proving 'If you aren't paying for it,
you are the product'.
See Gov't: You have no right to anonymous speech on
Twitter:
But then the ADA told Judge Spina that the anonymous
tweeter @p0isAn0n "gave up his right to anonymity online when he joined Twitter,
leading the judge to ask our lawyers about Twitter's Terms of Service
agreement." The government attorney argued "the 'voluntary nature of the
tweeting' is what 'puts his IP address out there.' No one forced him to use
Twitter, she argued, and therefore his personally identifiable information is
fair game for the government to scoop up."
The judge then asked the
government attorney how else might a user "engage in anonymous speech in the
21st century if not online?"
You might be entertained by the
answer. The issue is one of balance of power between the individual's
Constitutional rights of association and free speech, and the government who
theoretically has no interest in the political process other than to insure
fairness.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|