Other Contributors

About Us

The contributors to the Consumer Law & Policy blog are lawyers and law professors who practice, teach, or write about consumer law and policy. The blog is hosted by Public Citizen Litigation Group, but the views expressed here are solely those of the individual contributors (and don't necessarily reflect the views of institutions with which they are affiliated). To view the blog's policies, please click here.

« Times Article: How Companies Learn Your Secrets | Main | Marketing Tobacco to Kids »

Friday, March 09, 2012


Account Deleted

Ron Paul is in this video

Hugo S. Cunningham

Anonymous speech has its place in a free society, but it is not the same thing as false-flag speech. If you claim to speak in someone's name, then you should forfeit your claim of anonymity against them. If you want to circulate an anonymous racist video about Jon Huntsman's family, then keep it anonymous.

Suppose someone embittered by Ralph Nader's criticism of Israel started putting out video clips supposedly of Ralph Nader explaining his opposition to Israel in inflammatory antisemitic terms, eg the Holocaust was a hoax, Jews are too pushy, a Jewish conspiracy shuts Palestinians out of the mainstream media, etc. And then he continued to put out bogus Nader video clips with more subtle poison. Do you really argue that Nader should have no recourse to find out who he is?


They (campaign finance laws) don't stay on the books that well. And the theory Paul's campaign was espousing here was unrelated to any justification for campaign finance laws, it was simply trademark infringement.

Related to trademark, it would be really interesting, from a First Amendment, perspective if the Supreme Court's decision in US v. Alvarez ( has anything to say about Paul's theory of trademark infringement here. From what I've read that was one theory that got some play at oral argument.


Just to be clear: I could start a website called "", present it as race-baiting and advocating for violent revolution, closing with "Vote Obama 2012", and there would be no free speech implications?

If so, how the hell do campaign finance laws stay on the book?

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

Subscribe to CL&P

RSS/Atom Feed

To receive a daily email of Consumer Law & Policy content, enter your email address here:

Search CL&P Blog

Recent Posts

December 2017

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
          1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30