"We must decide whether the  layoff provision is supported  by a 
compelling state purpose and whether the means chosen to accomplish 
that purpose are narrowly tailored."   (Wygant v. Jackson Board of 
Education, 476 U.S. 267, 274 (1986))

The compelling government interest is one of the cornerstones of strict 
scrutiny, the highest level of judicial scrutiny possible. When a 
compelling interest is mentioned it is usually a nod to or indication 
of strict scrutiny.  While many things could be said to be compelling, 
in actuality very few laws pass the strict scrutiny test thought it 
bears noting that not all laws are evaluated by strict scrutiny. There 
are a few others levels of scrutiny that can be applied, namely 
rational and intermediate.

http://www.wifcon.com/analadarscrutiny.htm

-Graham

On Nov 17, 2005, at 17:45, Geoffrey Duke wrote:

> Chris Moran wrote:
>
>> Um.. I find that highly wrong. While I rarely hide my identity when I
>> speak up, anonimity is protected to at least some extent.
>>
>>  From http://www.epic.org/free_speech/ :
>
> I stand corrected.  Thanks for the informative link.
>
> They write:
>
>>>>
> Anonymity--the ability to conceal one's identity while
> communicating--enables the expression of political ideas, 
> participation in
> the government process, membership in political associations, and the
> practice of religious belief without fear of government intimidation or
> public retaliation.
>
> Disclosure laws have been upheld only where there is a compelling 
> government
> interest at stake, such as assuring the integrity of the election 
> process by
> requiring campaign contribution disclosures.
> <<<
>
> I guess I feel skeptical of the "compelling government interest" 
> criterion.
> I expect that the government could create an appropriate interest that 
> could
> compell attribution.
>
> And I would engage in a dialog with you about the relationship of
> consequences to accountability and responsibility.
>
> --Geoff