The author of the techdirt article is rather ambiguous in portraying his "issue" with Ron Paul's litigation. Paul is using proper legal channels to uncover someone with possibly nefarious intent. Had Paul claimed it was hate speech or used back channels like the DHS to shut the account down I might be a bit weirded out.
It has nothing to do with the particular medium either; it would have been the same had it been in a newspaper, magazine or flyer.
It's not really much to do about First Amendment rights either. Sure, I have the right to post a video calling you a child molester. Might you have the right to sue me for defamation? Say you were running for Mayor when I posted the video. Say I ended the video with the slogan, "Child Molesters for Zoggie!" Perhaps you would then be compelled to use proper legal channels to identify me, to bring me into the light where I can more openly and publicly make my claims.
Now let's say you are running for Mayor of my town. Say for some reason I oppose your candidacy. Say I slipped an anonymous letter in the door of every person in town claiming that you're a child molester. Now say I slipped the letter in the doors but signed it and gave my phone number...
Do you see where I'm going with this?
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here: