Ron DeSantis Rediscovers the First Amendment's Protections for Anonymous Speech
The Florida governor is attacking Republican primary rival Nikki Haley over her awful idea to police online speech, but the timing is awkward.

When former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley pitched a terrible (and likely unconstitutional) idea to force social media companies to verify all users and effectively ban anonymous accounts, she drew a sharp rebuke from Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis.
"Haley's proposal to ban anonymous speech online—similar to what China recently did—is dangerous and unconstitutional," DeSantis posted on X (formerly Twitter). He pointed out that some of America's founders, including The Federalist Papers' authors Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison published their essays anonymously—part of a long tradition of anonymous speech in America.
In the week since those initial remarks, Haley has backpedaled a bit. She now admits that Americans have a First Amendment right to anonymous speech online but continues to support a crackdown on foreigners who "create anonymous accounts to spread chaos and anti-American filth."
DeSantis' campaign has kept the heat turned up. "No matter how she tries to spin it, Haley can't take back her 'Day One' plan to have the government strip Americans of their First Amendment rights," DeSantis campaign spokesman Bryan Griffin said last week.
The stake of this fight, in no small part, is the chance to be perceived as the second-place candidate in the Republican primary field, where former President Donald Trump still holds a wide lead. DeSantis has been slipping in the polls for months, while Haley has steadily climbed after several strong debate performances.
DeSantis is certainly right to take Haley to task over this terrible idea, and he's probably right that doing so will help him regain some lost ground in the GOP primary race.
Still, the whole exchange creates a bit of an awkward situation for DeSantis, who is just a few months removed from making his own attacks on anonymous speech. During a livestreamed event in March, DeSantis criticized the media's use of anonymous sources and suggested that the U.S. Supreme Court might be "receptive" to revisiting its landmark 1964 decision that raised the bar for defamation lawsuits filed by public figures.
Meanwhile, a bill introduced in the Florida Legislature earlier this year and backed by DeSantis aimed to make several changes to how Florida law handles defamation cases filed against news organizations. Among the changes was a provision telling courts to regard as false any content from anonymous sources, unless it could be proven true.
DeSantis even acknowledged that the bill, if passed into law, could have a chilling effect on reporting. "I do think it may cause people to not want to put out things that are false that are smearing somebody's reputation. And you know, I think…people can make a judgment about how they view that," DeSantis said in March, according to Florida Politics.
Seth Stern, director of advocacy for the Freedom of the Press Foundation, called the proposal "a brazen and blatantly unconstitutional attack on speech and press freedoms." The bill died in a state House committee earlier this year, but DeSantis' support for the bill sits uncomfortably beside his more recent criticisms of Haley's attack on anonymous speech (to say nothing of his other attacks on free expression by the likes of drag queens and pro-Gaza protesters).
This shouldn't be hard. Anonymous speech should be (and is) subject to the same constitutional protection as any other speech, whether it is something posted anonymously online or offered to a reporter. It's understandable why public figures in positions of power might not like that—but the Constitution exists to limit the power of government, not as a balm for the thin skin of certain politicians.
Obviously, this is not in any way a defense of Haley, whose terrible free speech proposal has likely cost her whatever small bits of goodwill she'd engendered from libertarians with some important straight talk about the deficit. She should continue backtracking from her proposal to unmask anonymous accounts online—and probably ought to refresh herself with the constitution of the government that she's campaigning to lead.
But DeSantis' track record on free speech suggests his objections are more about political opportunism than principled concern for the rights of Americans to communicate freely. The First Amendment applies all the time, not just when you want to use it to bash a rival politician.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Yeay! Another DeSantis article.
AWKWARD TIMING!
It's all so terrible.
I’am making over $20k a month working online. I kept seeing how some people are able to earn a lot of money online, so I decided to look into it. I had luck to stumble upon something that totally changed my life. After 2 months of searching, last month I received a paycheck for $19683 for just working on the laptop for a few hours weekly. And best thing is..It’s so Easy…
.
.
.
HERE———————≻≻≻≻≻ https://Www.Salarypay5.com
[mistaken flag...meant for commercial spam reply above]
The Koch cheap labor express has endorsed Haley. Expect Reason to have go all in on her despite her statist neocon positions.
“‘Obviously, this is not in any way a defense of Haley”
…just to bash DeSantis.
I’m not even sure if I *like* De Santis, and I suppose he must be dong bad things or omitting good ones, but when he gets in the news it’s because they’re attacking him for a position which usually seems quite reasonable.
Meanwhile, Haley’s chances of winning the Presidency aren’t good, but the people behind her, even if she loses, are going to remain in positions of influence. If she’s attacking online anonymity, that means there’s plenty of establishment figures using her to launch this particular trial balloon.
I like DeSantis. He isn’t everything I want in an elected leader, but the good in his evil strongly outweighs the evil in his good. Plus he tends to beat up on wokies and other assorted Marxist villains. Which is always the right call. Like beating the crap out of dirty hippies.
During a livestreamed event in March, DeSantis criticized the media's use of anonymous sources and suggested that the U.S. Supreme Court might be "receptive" to revisiting its landmark 1964 decision that raised the bar for defamation lawsuits filed by public figures.
You are equating two different legal discussions dishonestly. This has nothing to do with anonymous speech which is a user posting statements under anonymity. This has to do with public statements defaming someone under the guise of anonymous sources, removing a level of defamation nobody can prove as a source to seek out malicious intent. Even anonymous users can be exposed in a defamation lawsuit.
What the fuck is this article?
Yeah, it really is a breathtaking bout of stupidity.
Haley: We need to remove anonymity from everyone, even law abiding citizens, up front.
DeSantis: Once a crime has been alleged and the court agrees that defamation has taken place, there is no right to anonymity and, even if there were, like any other right, it restricts the government, not two people between each other. Free Speech doesn't and cannot compel the government to protect your ability to knowingly spread lies in secret and, should you get caught, doesn't stand athwart other people's right to remain secure in their persons and effects.
An exceptionally stupid and rather nakedly liberty-agnostic, anti-objective, pro-media establishment, anti-DeSantis take given that it's an L for the GOP either way.
Was actually curious as to what they were referring to. It was worse than I thought it could be.
All you need to know about Haley is that the center-right unironically believes that she “has the potential to be a great president.” They’re also on board with her further expansion of the surveillance state, as is their wont, claiming that it’s about “restoring amity” when in reality they believe it will get their political opponents to shut up, go along with the status quo, and concede to more pushing of the Overton Window far to the left while making snarky remarks about it the whole way, as if that will affect the left’s continued power grabs one iota.
Completely deluded, stupid people who should remove themselves from public life.
I think maybe it’s worth noting that Trump didn’t make Haley an ambassador as a favor to Haley. He did it as a favor to McMaster… It was, pretty openly, him ‘promoting’ her to a powerless PR position so that the power she had been exercising would wind up in somebody else’s hands.
It was no favor to her, nor intended to be. And she took that poisoned chalice and drained it dry, not the cleverest political move.
Being journalists, the Reason staff generally more concerned about free speech issues that affect the professional press.
Whether you agree with him or not, DeSantis' efforts tend to seek to empower individuals ability to speak freely, often at the expense of institutions. His criticism of Haley is generally consistent with the policies he has been implementing.
Right. News media has occasionally used the shield of, “Here’s what I heard an anonymous say,” in order to share remarks that might other use be defamatory. You can defend yourself against that speech, but if the speaker claiming inside knowledge, you can’t rebut their expertise.
That’s completely different than someone wanting to express anonymous opinions, or share videos they found elsewhere (like LibsofTikTok), or just shitpost on Twitter.
If you saw something potentially defamatory on Twitter, you might challenge a user to produce their sources. Someone in the media will claim they have highly placed sources but won’t disclose them, so you can’t challenge what they’re using as a source.
Qualified immunity... FOR JOURNALISMISTS ONLY!
DeSantis has been slipping in the polls for months, while Haley has steadily climbed after several strong debate performances.
Can I get a cite for this? Everything I’ve seen her say in debates has made me dislike even more. Who are the people who think she’s scoring points? Are they all leftist media types?
GOPe and the neocons.
I can employ an admittedly extremely shallow measuring stick for how Haley is perceived across the political spectrum. My youtube (and Rumble feeds) are chock-a-block with a small number of vaguely alt-right-ish personalities, a chunk of small-c-conservative British liberals and a whole lot of dissident lefties-- some who still refer to themselves as progressives- but have either been the victims of, or preternaturally despise wokeness and have strong affinity for free speech and the first amendment.
Pretty much 100% of them can't stand Haley. So that leaves corporate Democrats and people who watch CNN unironically.
She's clearly positioning herself to be the establishment's preferred choice if Biden won't take the blatant advice of his party and the media and drop out, so Newsom or Pritzker can step in and take over. If Biden actually does the right thing for his party and says he won't run, Haley's not going to get within sniffing distance of the White House.
And even if Biden doesn't drop out, she'll need overwhelming majorities of independents--like, in the 70 percent range--to beat the Dems' ballot harvesting operations. If she's the nominee, the Trump voters will just stay home or even vote for Biden out of spite, just to make sure she stays out of the White House. Their logic will be that, at least with the enemy in office, you actually know what you're fighting against. With Haley, it's just a question of how much she'll give in to Dem demands to "move the ball forward."
On the other hand, to be sure, MMA couldn't have created all those fake accounts to attack X if each account user had to be identified and verified.
What does Mixed Martial Arts have against X?
Still, the whole exchange creates a bit of an awkward situation for DeSantis, who is just a few months removed from making his own attacks on anonymous speech. During a livestreamed event in March, DeSantis criticized the media's use of anonymous sources and suggested that the U.S. Supreme Court might be "receptive" to revisiting its landmark 1964 decision that raised the bar for defamation lawsuits filed by public figures.
If one of these things had something to do with the other, you might have a blank Excel document before your eyes with a tab labeled "an argument".
FYI, when you've lost Vanity Fair...
EcoHealth Alliance is like the "where's Waldo" of COVID and lab leak fuckery.
The author of this article is making an apples and oranges comparison, and he should know better. Nikki Haley is a vile and contemptible piece of garbage. This is just one in a long line of examples of what a disgusting human being she is. I don't approve of DeSantis opinion on anonymous news sources, but that's quite a bit different than outright blocking anonymous posting on social media. I certainly think newspapers should be allowed to publish articles that include anonymous sourcing, although I consider any such articles to be worthless. This would only be an accurate comparison if DeSantis was referring to mainstream news articles that were written by an anonymous author not articles that included an anonymous source.
Reason really wants DeSantis or Haley to get the GOP nomination so that select editors can again reluctantly vote for that geriatric child groper.
I’m sure they’ll vote for Biden no matter what. I truly hope they burn for it.
I truly hope they burn for it.
They will, along with the rest of us.
I simply can't imagine anyone who has written an article for reason.com actually saying they would vote for Trump in 2024. Ok, Bob Poole would vote for Trump but while he writes for reason.org, I haven't seen an article by him on reason.com in many moons. The articles on reason.org seem to be written by people who know what they are doing while the writers on reason.com seem to apply shallow thinking in their rush to publish.
I don't know what's not to approve of DeSantis' position on anonymous sources.
The professional media have long used 'anonymous sources' as a way of nominally outsourcing defamation and lies. They just claim to be accurately reporting what somebody else said, and sorry, they're not going to tell you who that somebody else is, just trust them.
It's a media abuse, it always has been. It's perfectly legit to use anonymous sources to guide a media investigation, quite another to use them as the actual basis of reporting and just demand that the public take your word for them being real.
"DeSantis' track record on free speech suggests his objections are more about political opportunism than principled concern for the rights of Americans to communicate freely"
DeSantis is about DeSantis, not prínciple. If he believed in free speech he wouldn't have been penalizing Disney for positions he opposed, or trying to cancel the college faculty. That is of course typical; hypocritical Republicans whine about cancel culture but want to cancel those with whom they disagree.
Disney didn't get "penalized". Disney got their special privilege revoked. It's amazing how hypocritical Democrats can be when the special favors for multi-billion dollar companies they like get cancelled.
DeSantis wants to ban pro-Palestinian student groups on college campuses ONLY because he doesn't like their speech. He is a hypocrite.
Oh, for fuck's sake, Boehm.
There is no actual comparison between trying to prohibit anonymous speech by everyone, and establishing a legal standard that in a civil defamation action, an anonymously-sourced statement is rebuttably presumed to be false.
Yes, I understand you and your fellow reporters want a magic shield against any kind of liability for your fuck-ups. But if you print an unattributed accusation and you can't actually come up with evidence that it's true, even with the power (since this is a standard for court cases) to legally compel witnesses and production of documentation? You did, in fact, fuck up and defame someone.
It’s hard to tell if Boehm is more dishonest, or more moronic. I guess it depends on if he really believes the shit he writes.
As bad as this article is, it’s nowhere near as unbelievable as “Republicans are ginning up culture wars”.
That’s on the level of Poland ginning up WWII
So, he's doing the right thing, but . . . ?
Yes DeSantis made that tweex(?) but he made it an hour after Vivek