But we curtail what others can do with their own money all the time.
But not constitutionally or justly if we are "curtailing" political speech.
What just goal or means, praytell, does prohibiting anonymous speech facilitate? What ill means or goal does prohibiting anonymous speech impair?
There is nothing about compelling the connection of the identity of the speaker with the speech which changes the "qui bono" of what is said.
Prohibiting anonymous speech, and prohibiting anonymous donations of funds given to amplifying or enabling political speech, can only facilitate actions of reprisal against the speaker, donor, and recipient. These are the only things it can accomplish, anonymity can change nothing of what is said or it's valence.
I choose to speak, and never anonymously, because I do not fear reprisal or judgement by men; rather, I prepare for them.
There is a reason I once referred to "Roger" here as an asymptote of the sinister, and it wasn't just the fact I enjoyed the word play of "left" and "sinister".
It's because I see through him and his like to their core.
There is no distinction but opportunity and faintness of heart between the worst jackboot thug and every leftist.
Rousseau's error has not been improved on in the 9 quarter centuries or so since it's commission. Since the Enlightenment was abandoned for yet more Edarkenment.
Rousseau's error always leads to the Tribunal, to the Gulag, to "Arbeit Macht Frei"; minor progress towards which is exactly what that idiot Stubby is excited about.
You can't get from here--the human reality--and progress to the Rousseauan "common will" implemented in the real world, without a hell of a lot of ignoring actual human rights and the laws and practices which protect them. You can't get there without murder, theft and deceit.
I will not give up the ballot box, the jury box, or the soapbox to them. Neither as MSimon seems to, will I concentrate all efforts on one narrow aspect of liberty to the exclusion or detriment of all the rest...which is exactly what MSimon endorses by playing footsie with Democrats. The Republicans have their issues, but the Democrats are inherently opposed to liberty, and have been in one way or another since Jefferson founded them to preserve the slave holding planter class's position of preeminence.
And so help me God, if the ballot, jury, and soapbaox are all denied me, I must look to the cartridge box.
Which 3D printing makes the more available regardless of other circumstances, and thankfully so.
I did not pick my signature idly.
And if I haven't happened to have mentioned it here fully, my name is Thomas David Perkins, and if there is still opportunity for confusion I was born on April 28th, 1971.