MY EXERCISE OF FREE SPEECH

I learned today that this blog may get a bit of free publicity soon, as a major Twin Cities newspaper is working on a story regarding my purchase of the possible domain names of potential DFL campaigns in Minnesota.

A reporter did contact me for my comments, but I know full well that space constraints, misunderstandings and the occasional bias can prevent the media from accurately presenting both sides of the story. What better a location than this to explain the situation fairly?

Last week I purchased domain names for several high profile candidates. My solitary goal was to use increased internet searches for these candidates to garner more traffic for the MDE blog.

I will remind my critics that Democrats in Minnesota and across the country have a long history of buying the domain names of GOP elected officials, private citizens, and candidates for political tomfoolery. My intentions were mild in comparison.

Admittedly, my objective may have been a little self serving, but it was hardly nefarious. My modest marketing plan was to ensure that citizens seeking information on Amy Klobachar, Patty Wetterling, or Mike Hatch receive the opportunity to hear the other side of the story at Minnesota Democrats Exposed. I purchased these domain names with personal money and I have no intention of ever selling them to anyone for financial or political profit.

By design, my blog is dedicated to a truthful discussion on the activities, statements, and tactics of Minnesota Democrats. I encourage people to visit the websites of Minnesota Democrats by providing links to their websites from MDE. I think voters deserve to hear from both parties – which is why I am actively promoting my website as a factual alternative source of information on Minnesota politics.

On a final note, the media is likely to criticize my blog for being published anonymously. I expect my fellow bloggers across the political spectrum will share my defense of our right to post "free speech" with as much or as little personal publicity as we choose.

Further, the U.S. Supreme Court has consistently ruled that anonymous and pseudonymous speech is fully protected by the First Amendment.

The 1995 Supreme Court ruling in McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission reads:
Protections for anonymous speech are vital to democratic discourse. Allowing dissenters to shield their identities frees them to express critical, minority views . . . Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. . . . It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation . . . at the hand of an intolerant society.

I look forward to seeing the upcoming aticle and to the increased hits it is sure to deliver to my blog. Ironically, their coverage may do far more to promote MDE than a handful of candidate web domains ever will.

Thanks for taking time in advance to read the real story.