I wonder…
If the “committee against the bond” will resurface if another bond is proposed? The rhetoric of the second postcard leads the reader to believe that the cost of the bond is the problem with the reconfiguration plan. They also attack previous bonds. To be clear the 35 million worth of bonds since 1999 was necessary because the buildings were left to deteriorate or were not made ADA compliant as required by law. Willis Avenue was built because the old Willis Avenue was condemned due to years of neglect. The monies were spent on elevators in three buildings, roofs, windows, doors, and new heating and ventilating. The HS auditorium was the only non infrastructure item. Our buildings are now in excellent shape and will remain that way. I find it ironic that the postcard implies the bond is a waste of money, yet the configuration this bond creates is designed to save the taxpayer the most amount of money. An independent finance committee, comprised of district residents, concluded that this bond will save the taxpayer 42 million over 10 years AFTER the cost of the bond and interest is calculated. The “committee’s” argument falls very short in this postcard. If you are concerned about saving the most money then this bond does that. In fact the second bond saves the least amount of money, so I am certain the committee will return- if and when that bond is put up.
Artie,
Was it really misinformation?
I do appreciate the fact that you, as the rest of us, are entitled to our opinions, but that doesn’t make anyone a liar (spreading misinformation).
Not agreeing is one thing, but don’t you believe that closing all neighborhood schools on one side of the district would affect property values negatively?
Some of us purchased homes with a school nearby intentionally. Isn’t it possible that others would like to do the same in the future?
Of course quality of education is paramount. But I believe that can be achieved in our district without the drastic measures which have been mapped out, along with controlling the budget.
\ There have been other suggestions at board meetings, but it seems a course has been laid out and will not be changed, unfortunately.
By the way, just to be clear, I am not a member of the committee. I support those who wish anonymity because it is their right. Anonymity does not make anyone a liar, just nameless.
Anonymity can serve two purposes.
1. Protect you from reprisal in a society which does not recognize a person’s freedom of speech.
2. Allow you to spread misinformation without needing to clarify it.
Clearly the latter was in play here.
I find this debate questioning the value of an opinion by an anonymous author a waste of energy. All of us are entitled to be anonymous. The fact that some people insist on an identity for no positive reason, other than to condemn by name seems to be unreasonable. No one, I repeat no one, has to agree with an opinion, but to discount it’s validity because someone wants it to be anonymous seems to be unreasonable to me. (just my opinion).
Although not all of us agree, whether we state our names or not, should not matter. We should listen to each other to hear all sides, we may actually learn from each other.
The bond failed and puts an end to this debate. As Jim said, thank you to all who took the time to be involved. Now let’s move forward.
” If you are concerned about saving the most money then this bond does that. In fact the second bond saves the least amount of money, so I am certain the committee will return- if and when that bond is put up.”
The facts are that this bond proposal is only about money. It’s not for what is best for the students. It is not even balanced between educational needs and monetary savings. It is done to save money in the budget. We are experimenting with our childrens future to save a few bucks. And if this experiment fails it will cost the community far more in losses than anything we will save. To me it is a clear case of pennywise and pound foolish.
As for the bond mailer I applaud your efforts, even if I disagreed with your conclusions or your goals I would applaud your efforts. ( I do agree with the mailer). There is so much apathy in our district (shown by the average district voter turnout of about 2,000) that anything that gets people invovled should be appreciated.
Why do people care if people speak out anonymously? They have the right to do so in a free society and it doesn’t mean their opinion is any less valuable. I have no problem putting my name to my thoughts but many people don’t feel the same way. Maybe if we had more people who could respect people they disagree with then we would have more people willing to put their names to their thoughts.
So for all the people who have spoken out anonymously or with their names posted, wether they are pro bond or against, I say GOOD ON YOU!
At least they got involved and tried to make changes they believed would help their district and community.
We can agree that the Unimailer is misinformed about the implications of this bond. We can surely agree that the “Outlook” has advocated only one position on the bond.
Mr. Barnett,
Thanks for the credit. Your welcome for the lesson. The comment about being Un American was not directed at you and Mr. Uleland but at others as I explained in my post. We all know you’re in a league of your own.
Thank you for the legal lesson John. I will give you credit for putting your name to the mis-information you spew.
As far as addressing this to Rick and Myself and including the words “Un-American”, I will only say, you are way, and I mean WAY out of your league.
I really don’t care who the “Committee” is – I was expressing my opinion that I don’t value someone’s input whether I agree or disagree with their position if they are not willing to stand up for what they believe in and sign their name to it. While no one is disputing their rights, the courts can rule that individuals can be anonymous, but personnaly I have no respect for people who handle things in this manner.
I find it interesting that Mr. McGrath felt it necessary to provide a legal lession on the issue. In the pre-revolutionary colonies people were hung for stating their position. Has Mineola gotten that bad? Maybe we would be a better community if folks expressed their opinions in a rationale manner and we had less of the “fear tactics” .
Correction with my comment , I used the wrong form of their – lol ! I hope there will be correction and clarification from some statements printed in Newsday today , considering how important this is for the community. This really has been a painful ordeal for some zip codes so far , and I just want the facts and options to be clear.
I hope that their will be a phone recording tonight to correct and clarify the errors in Newsday today.
I make no comment on the accuracy of the two mailings sent by the “Committee”. Rather I make reference to Mr. Barnett’s and Mr. Uleland’s criticism’s of the anonymous nature of the mailings.
There is a long tradition in the pre United States colonies of publishing anonymous flyers, pamphlets, etc… The reasons for people to invoke anonymity is usually the fear of reprisal. Indeed the fear of reprisal is no doubt motivating the individuals involved in these mailings. Indeed, on Facebook one person suggested asking the Post Office to identify the bulk mail permit holder in order to find out the identities of the individuals making these mailings. For what purpose would anyone do this except to retaliate against the individuals involved? Of course this reinforces their need for anonymity.
Indeed, over the years since colonial times there have been various attempts to repress individuals distributing anonymous publications. These attempts to repress them have usually been by the government. Several cases have gone up to the Supreme Court for guidance. I have reprinted one such case from 1960 in which the Supreme Court struck down a Los Angeles ondinance requiring people distributing leaflets to place their names and addresses on any printed materials distributed in LA.
In essence, for those who do not wish to read the decision, the Court said it’s ok to be anonymous. These two mailings are in line with those traditions and as such, under this precedent, any attempt to identify anonymous individuals should be construed as Un-American!
The case is reprinted below.
TALLEY V. CALIFORNIA, 362 U. S. 60 (1960)
U.S. Supreme Court
Talley v. California, 362 U.S. 60 (1960)
Talley v. California
No. 154
Argued January 13-14, 1960
Decided March 7, 1960
362 U.S. 60
CERTIORARI TO THE APPELLATE DEPARTMENT OF THE
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, LOS ANGELES COUNTY
Syllabus
Over petitioner’s protest that it invaded his freedom of speech and press in violation of the Fourteenth and First Amendments to the Federal Constitution, he was convicted of violating a city ordinance which forbade distribution, in any place under any circumstances, of any handbill which did not have printed thereon the name and address of the person who prepared, distributed or sponsored it.
Held: the ordinance is void on its face, and the conviction is reversed. Lovell v. Griffin, 303 U. S. 444. Pp. 362 U. S. 60-66.
172 Cal.App.2d Supp. 797, 332 P.2d 447, reversed.
MR. JUSTICE BLACK delivered the opinion of the Court.
The question presented here is whether the provisions of a Los Angeles City ordinance restricting the distribution of handbills “abridge the freedom of speech and of the press secured against state invasion by the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution.” [Footnote 1] The ordinance, § 28.06 of the Municipal Code of the City of Los Angeles, provides:
“No person shall distribute any handbill in any place under any circumstances, which does not have
Page 362 U. S. 61
printed on the cover, or the face thereof, the name and address of the following:”
“(a) The person who printed, wrote, compiled or manufactured the same.”
“(b) The person who caused the same to be distributed; provided, however, that in the case of a fictitious person or club, in addition to such fictitious name, the true names and addresses of the owners, managers or agents of the person sponsoring said handbill shall also appear thereon.”
The petitioner was arrested and tried in a Los Angeles Municipal Court for violating this ordinance. It was stipulated that the petitioner had distributed handbills in Los Angeles, and two of them were presented in evidence. Each had printed on it the following:
“National Consumers Mobilization,”
“Box 6533,”
“Los Angeles 55, Calif.”
“PLeasant 9-1576.”
The handbills urged readers to help the organization carry on a boycott against certain merchants and businessmen, whose names were given, on the ground that, as one set of handbills said, they carried products of “manufacturers who will not offer equal employment opportunities to Negroes, Mexicans, and Orientals.” There also appeared a blank which, if signed, would request enrollment of the signer as a “member of National Consumers Mobilization,” and which was preceded by a statement that “I believe that every man should have an equal opportunity for employment no matter what his race, religion, or place of birth.”
The Municipal Court held that the information printed on the handbills did not meet the requirements of the ordinance, found the petitioner guilty as charged, and fined him $10. The Appellate Department of the Superior
Page 362 U. S. 62
Court of the County of Los Angeles affirmed the conviction, rejecting petitioner’s contention, timely made in both state courts, that the ordinance invaded his freedom of speech and press in violation of the Fourteenth and First Amendments to the Federal Constitution. [Footnote 2] 172 Cal.App.2d Supp. 797, 332 P.2d 447. Since this was the highest state court available to petitioner, we granted certiorari to consider this constitutional contention. 360 U.S. 928.
In Lovell v. Griffin, 303 U. S. 444, we held void on its face an ordinance that comprehensively forbade any distribution of literature at any time or place in Griffin, Georgia, without a license. Pamphlets and leaflets, it was pointed out, “have been historic weapons in the defense of liberty,” [Footnote 3] and enforcement of the Griffin ordinance “would restore the system of license and censorship in its baldest form.” Id. at 303 U. S. 452. A year later, we had before us four ordinances each forbidding distribution of leaflets — one in Irvington, New Jersey, one in Los Angeles, California, one in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and one
Page 362 U. S. 63
in Worcester, Massachusetts. Schneider v. State, 308 U. S. 147. Efforts were made to distinguish these four ordinances from the one held void in the Griffin case. The chief grounds urged for distinction were that the four ordinances had been passed to prevent either frauds, disorder, or littering, according to the records in these cases, and another ground urged was that two of the ordinances applied only to certain city areas. This Court refused to uphold the four ordinances on those grounds, pointing out that there were other ways to accomplish these legitimate aims without abridging freedom of speech and press. Frauds, street littering, and disorderly conduct could be denounced and punished as offenses, the Court said. Several years later we followed the Griffin and Schneider cases in striking down a Dallas, Texas, ordinance which was applied to prohibit the dissemination of information by the distribution of handbills. We said that, although a city could punish any person for conduct on the streets if he violates a valid law,
“one who is rightfully on a street . . . carries with him there as elsewhere the constitutional right to express his views in an orderly fashion . . . by handbills and literature as well as by the spoken word.”
Jamison v. Texas, 318 U. S. 413, 318 U. S. 416.
The broad ordinance now before us, barring distribution of “any handbill in any place under any circumstances,” [Footnote 4] falls precisely under the ban of our prior cases unless this ordinance is saved by the qualification that handbills can be distributed if they have printed on them the names and addresses of the persons who prepared, distributed
Page 362 U. S. 64
or sponsored them. For, as in Griffin, the ordinance here is not limited to handbills whose content is “obscene or offensive to public morals or that advocates unlawful conduct.” [Footnote 5] Counsel has urged that this ordinance is aimed at providing a way to identify those responsible for fraud, false advertising and libel. Yet the ordinance is in no manner so limited, nor have we been referred to any legislative history indicating such a purpose. Therefore, we do not pass on the validity of an ordinance limited to prevent these or any other supposed evils. This ordinance simply bars all handbills under all circumstances anywhere that do not have the names and addresses printed on them in the place the ordinance requires.
There can be no doubt that such an identification requirement would tend to restrict freedom to distribute information, and thereby freedom of expression.
“Liberty of circulating is as essential to that freedom as liberty of publishing; indeed, without the circulation, the publication would be of little value.”
Lovell v. Griffin, 303 U.S. at 303 U. S. 452.
Anonymous pamphlets, leaflets, brochures and even books have played an important role in the progress of mankind. Persecuted groups and sects from time to time throughout history have been able to criticize oppressive practices and laws either anonymously or not at all. The obnoxious press licensing law of England, which was also enforced on the Colonies, was due in part to the knowledge that exposure of the names of printers, writers and distributors would lessen the circulation of literature critical of the government. The old seditious libel cases in England show the lengths to which government had to go to find out who was responsible for books that were obnoxious
Page 362 U. S. 65
to the rulers. John Lilburne was whipped, pilloried, and fined for refusing to answer questions designed to get evidence to convict him or someone else for the secret distribution of books in England. Two Puritan Ministers, John Penry and John Udal, were sentenced to death on charges that they were responsible for writing, printing or publishing books. [Footnote 6] Before the Revolutionary War colonial patriots frequently had to conceal their authorship or distribution of literature that easily could have brought down on them prosecutions by English-controlled courts. Along about that time, the Letters of Junius were written, and the identity of their author is unknown to this day. [Footnote 7] Even the Federalist Papers, written in favor of the adoption of our Constitution, were published under fictitious names. It is plain that anonymity has sometimes been assumed for the most constructive purposes.
We have recently had occasion to hold in two cases that there are times and circumstances when States may not compel members of groups engaged in the dissemination of ideas to be publicly identified. Bates v. Little Rock, 361 U. S. 516; NAACP v. Alabama, 357 U. S. 449, 357 U. S. 462. The reason for those holdings was that identification and fear of reprisal might deter perfectly peaceful discussions of public matters of importance. This broad Los Angeles ordinance is subject to the same infirmity. We hold that it, like the Griffin, Georgia, ordinance, is void on its face.
Page 362 U. S. 66
The judgment of the Appellate Department of the Superior Court of the State of California is reversed, and the cause is remanded to it for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
[Footnote 1]
Schneider v. State, 308 U. S. 147, 308 U. S. 154. Cf. Lovell v. Griffin, 303 U. S. 444, 303 U. S. 450.
[Footnote 2]
Petitioner also argues here that the ordinance, both on its face and as construed and applied, “arbitrarily denies petitioner equal protection of the laws in violation of the Due Process and Equal Protection” Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. This argument is based on the fact that the ordinance applies to handbills only, and does not include within its proscription books, magazines and newspapers. Our disposition of the case makes it unnecessary to consider this contention.
[Footnote 3]
The Court’s entire sentence was:
“These [pamphlets and leaflets] indeed have been historic weapons in the defense of liberty, as the pamphlets of Thomas Paine and others in our own history abundantly attest.”
It has been noted that some of Thomas Paine’s pamphlets were signed with pseudonyms. See Bleyer, Main Currents in the History of American Journalism (1927) 90-93. Illustrations of other anonymous and pseudonymous pamphlets and other writings used to discuss important public questions can be found in this same volume.
[Footnote 4]
Section 28.00 of the Los Angeles Municipal Code defines “handbill” as follows:
“‘Hand-bill’ shall mean any handbill, dodger, commercial advertising circular, folder, booklet, letter, card, pamphlet, sheet, poster, sticker, banner, notice or other written, printed or painted matter calculated to attract attention of the public.”
[Footnote 5]
Lovell v. Griffin, 303 U.S. at 303 U. S. 451.
[Footnote 6]
Penry was executed, and Udal died as a result of his confinement. 1 Hallam, The Constitutional History of England (1855) 205-206, 232.
[Footnote 7]
In one of the letters, written May 28, 1770, the author asked the following question about the tea tax imposed on this country, a question which he could hardly have asked but for his anonymity:
“What is it then, but an odious, unprofitable exertion of a speculative right, and fixing a badge of slavery upon the Americans, without service to their masters?”
2 Letters of Junius (1821) 39.
MR. JUSTICE HARLAN, concurring.
In judging the validity of municipal action affecting rights of speech or association protected against invasion by the Fourteenth Amendment, I do not believe that we can escape, as Mr. Justice Roberts said in Schneider v. New Jersey, 308 U. S. 147, 308 U. S. 161, “the delicate and difficult task” of weighing “the circumstances” and appraising “the substantiality of the reasons advanced in support of the regulation of the free enjoyment of” speech. More recently we have said that state action impinging on free speech and association will not be sustained unless the governmental interest asserted to support such impingement is compelling. See NAACP v. Alabama, 357 U. S. 449, 357 U. S. 463-464; Sweezy v. New Hampshire, 354 U. S. 234, 354 U. S. 265 (concurring opinion); see also Bates v. Little Rock, 361 U. S. 516.
Here, the State says that this ordinance is aimed at the prevention of “fraud, deceit, false advertising, negligent use of words, obscenity, and libel,” in that it will aid in the detection of those responsible for spreading material of that character. But the ordinance is not so limited, and I think it will not do for the State simply to say that the circulation of all anonymous handbills must be suppressed in order to identify the distributors of those that may be of an obnoxious character. In the absence of a more substantial showing as to Los Angeles’ actual experience with the distribution of obnoxious handbills, * such a
Page 362 U. S. 67
generality is for me too remote to furnish a constitutionally acceptable justification for the deterrent effect on free speech which this all-embracing ordinance is likely to have.
On these grounds, I concur in the judgment of the Court.
* On the oral argument the City Attorney stated:
“We were able to find out that, prior to 1931, an effort was made by the local Chamber of Commerce, urging the City Council to do something about these handbills and advertising matters which were false and misleading — had no names of sponsors. They were particularly interested in the fictitious name. They said, ‘Who are these people that are distributing; who are advertising; doing things of that sort?’ The meager record that we were able to find indicates that a request from the Council to the City Attorney as to their legal opinion on this subject [sic]. The City Attorney wrote back and formed the conclusion that distribution of handbills, pamphlets, or other matters, without the name of the fictitious firm or officers would be legal [sic]. Thereafter, in the early part of 1932, an ordinance was drafted and submitted to the City Council, and approved by them, which related to the original subject — unlawful for any person, firm or association to distribute in the city of Los Angeles any advertisement or handbill — or any other matter which does not have the names of the sponsors of such literature.”
The “Committee Against the Bond” is a disgrace! if you are not willing to put your name to your position as far as I’m concerned it’s just a piece of junk mail and not worth reading. Definitely not worth using as a basis for voting!
Keep spending your money – your literature goes right into the garbage with the other junk!
” In fact the second bond saves the least amount of money, so I am certain the committee will return- if and when that bond is put up.”
Not a chance. If this bond fails they will be satisfied. The other options would need to utilize a different northern school to bring them back to life.