There are times when anonymity is not only democratic privilege but is also necessary for a democracy to survive. It is at these times that factual, "secret" information can be exposed when it might not be otherwise.

However, for a presidential campaign, I would agree that anonymity has been abused in the past.

The right to be anonymous is part of the freedom of speech. The right to participate and not be identified is a staple of our society. It seems odd to me that we abhor the invasion of privacy by the state and yet willingly stomp on that right in the name of "the people's right to know".

Did anyone have the right to know who made the 1984 video? Absolutely not. Assuming his story is true, here's a guy who made a video in the privacy of his own home, distributed that video via an anonymous account, and probably knew full well that if his identity was uncovered, he would be unemployed. He believed in a candidate, and wanted to share his reasons via a non-traditional means. Now he's jobless.

Is that really the brave new world you're fighting for? Is that the transparency you want? A society in which people are outed for being supporters so they can be fired?

Anonymous speech is not only a virtue, but it's critical to the survival of our other freedoms.

I think there's a place for unnamed sources. Whistleblowers who are afraid of losing their jobs ought to have a way to expose problems without fear. Real protection would be better, but failing that, anonymity is the next best thing.

However, in the case of ParkRiver47, I think posting his video on the sly cost him his job. If he'd said, "my company works for the Obama campaign, but I did this on my own time and with my own equipment," it would have been protected First Amendment speech. The Obama campaign and Blue State Digital could still decide whether rogue employees who don't care about message discipline damage the campaign or company. That's a tougher issue. I've heard of employees who were fired for having bumper stickers on their car for candidates the company doesn't support. I doubt many of those companies have been successfully sued for First Amendment violations in today's "at-will" employment market.

As one other article here says today, it was the fact that he hid that made the media suspect his motives. But it wasn't just the media. I thought the same thing and said so. Politics has gotten so nasty with Rove and his ilk around, that I don't trust anything I see or hear unless I know where it's coming from. So, while I think citizen speech is a great thing, doing it in secret is not.

Did anyone have the right to know who made the video? If anyone did, it would be Barack Obama. If you're going to make something and use someone else's name name in the process, that person has a right to know who you are and what your agenda is.

This guy wasn't fired because he was outed as being an Obama supporter, he was fired because his actions and tenuous link to a client of the company could potentially effect the client of the company in a negative way.

www.omayajones.com