Is Chumpsky's posting of Poindexter's personal information ethically justified? [Archive]

Ethilrist

12-17-2002, 03:57 PM

umm, cite?

Just because it's publicly available doesn't mean it should be available here. There is a small chance it would be morally okay to post the information so that us right-thinking, morally unambiguous people could use it to set things right. However, the chance that the information would be picked up by a spambot or some sort of bottom-feeding yahoo who would make Poindexter's life miserable for no net advantage other than making hate Chumpsky just a whole lot are much, much better.

Want to vent warp plasma at somebody? Take it to the Pit. That's what it's for. Too personal for the pit? Every post that person makes has a little button under it labelled "email." Use it.

Mojo

12-17-2002, 04:00 PM

Originally posted by Chumpsky
And what makes you think that my purpose is only to harrass Poindexter? [/B]

Then please enlighten us as to why you posted it. And do it quickly, cus I don't think you'll be around for long.

Liberal

12-17-2002, 04:03 PM

Ack! Vorlon, when your user name gets in two columns of the front page, thread titles wrap about one word per line! :D

Bryan Ekers

12-17-2002, 04:03 PM

Originally posted by Mojo
Then please enlighten us as to why you posted it. And do it quickly, cus I don't think you'll be around for long.

I was going to ask that, myself, since a threat is pretty strongly implied.

gobear

12-17-2002, 04:07 PM

And what makes you think that my purpose is only to harrass Poindexter?

Does this mean we'll be seeing Chumpsky on the evening news sometime in the near future?

Chumpsky

12-17-2002, 04:09 PM

Originally posted by Mojo
Then please enlighten us as to why you posted it. And do it quickly, cus I don't think you'll be around for long. What's the problem? Poindexter wants to mine personal information of people who have committed no crime for some ambiguous use by the political police.

I don't see why Poindexter's home address and phone number should be considered private. He is attempting to make himself, again, a public figure. Thus, his information should be public. If he wants to make public policy, he should be accountable to the public.

And, of course, his home address should be San Quentin Penitentiary.

Mojo

12-17-2002, 04:13 PM

Point out the part where you answer my question.

DrDeth

12-17-2002, 04:18 PM

It has been published in newspapers & such, so he has been "outed" in the public domain. Chumsky didn't think of this all on his own- days before he posted it was in one of the SF weeklies.

I don't know why it was removed from this[], but if Chumpsky wanted to re-post it without even technically breaking a rule, all he'd have to do is post a link to one of the articles.

Now, should it have been "outed" in the first place? I really don't know. Legally, he is certainly a "public figure", by his own choice, so his rights to privacy are less that ours.

I don't think it needed TWO threads , though. Maybe not even one.

Bryan Ekers

12-17-2002, 04:19 PM

Ah, he makes an implied threat and then attempts to weasel out of it when challenged.

Chumpsky: you should be in politics instead of writing about it.

GIGObuster

12-17-2002, 04:25 PM

As much as it pains me I have to defend chumpsky a little.

This was discussed eary in Plastic by way of Wired, they noticed an article in the SF Weekely:

http://www.plastic.com/article.html?sid=02/12/15/16562393;cmt=54
http://sfweekly.com/issues/2002-11-27/smith.html/1/index.html

They also notice that Verizon has that information in their people pages! That is, their version of the white pages.

[mr T]
I think I will let the chumpsky live this time!
[/mr T]

Bearflag70

12-17-2002, 04:29 PM

Originally posted by Ethilrist
Just because it's publicly available doesn't mean it should be available here.

Just because it's public record doesn't mean it should be broadcast everywhere.

Just because someone is a public figure doesn't mean that person waives all expectations of privacy. The privacy of public officials should be more cherished by our society than it is, and prying into that realm of privacy should be generally discouraged. The more we pry, the less likely talented individuals will seek office.

Public officials can be held accountable through correspondence to their business offices and through the ballot box. Whatever his views are, let him have the sanctity of his home.

vibrotronica

12-17-2002, 04:50 PM

That's very moving, Bearflag. I agree that "prying into the realm of privacy should be generally discouraged." Does Total Information Awareness discourage prying into the realm of privacy? The potential for abuse of this system is beyond my meager imaginings.

As for the issue at hand, I am of two minds. On the one hand, as has already been pointed out, it is a great breach of netiquitte and it smacks of becoming the beast you're fighting. On the other hand, it's a piece of political theater worthy of the great Abbie Hoffman--poetic justice, like throwing dollar bills over the balcony of the New York Stock Exchange and watching the traders scramble for them.

ranwashingt

12-17-2002, 05:29 PM

I don't pretend to know the ethical ramifications implied by the act, but that free pint of Ben and Jerry's that GIGO's site got me was enough to sway my vote...I am as of this moment an offical wild eyed radical!

Viva la Chumpsky! Stick it to da Man! Forever your Politariot
Rand

Duck Duck Goose

12-17-2002, 05:40 PM

I see that John Corrado has now removed the information, with the note, "We do not allow the posting of other people's phone numbers and addresses, even for scoring debate points. The information has been excised. -JMCJ".

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=151055

I am Sparticus

12-17-2002, 05:49 PM

How on earth was that post even remotely threatening? I have a home address, and it is of public record, and I am not threatened by it.

If it were not against board rules, I would post the home addresses of the President of the United States and the Vice President of the United States, without further comment. That is in no way a threat.

The purpose of the post was to show the irony and hypocrisy of the TIA program, and to do a "how do you like it." Apparently, many members of the SdMB do not object to having that kind of information public, or do not understand irony/hypocrisy, or just like to periodically assassinate the character of our only left wing poster with the completely fabricated charge that it is some kind of a threat.

barton

12-17-2002, 06:07 PM

I have never seem anyone recoil in fear from a telephone book before. Especially a <B>page</B> from a telephone book.

Obviously, telephone books are violating the 4th amendment. Wow. Some of y'all are even more liberal than I am.

For chrissakes, folks, go to Yahoo, do a 'People Search' for 'Poindexter' in Maryland. Took me 15 seconds. The functional equal of thumbing through the White Pages.

SuaSponte

12-17-2002, 06:13 PM

Originally posted by I am Sparticus
The purpose of the post was to show the irony and hypocrisy of the TIA program, and to do a "how do you like it."

Either the public dissemination of private information is right or it is wrong.

Apparently, many members of the SdMB do not object to having that kind of information public, or do not understand irony/hypocrisy, or just like to periodically assassinate the character of our only left wing poster with the completely fabricated charge that it is some kind of a threat.

The hypocrisy here is Chumpsky's. He thinks what TIA is doing is wrong, and to demonstrate that, he does the wrong thing TIA is doing.
If it is wrong, it is wrong for Chumpsky, as well. But he claims that when he does it, it is not wrong.

That is hypocrisy.
I understand irony, and hypocrisy is not irony.

BTW, Chumpsky is not our only left-wing poster. If you think that, you don't pay much attention.
And one cannot assassinate that which does not exist.

Sua

CarnalK

12-17-2002, 07:02 PM

Mimicking your opponent to make a point is not truly hypocrisy. It's basically daring Poindexter to get upset about it and make him argue the wrong side. Surely this is clear. It's a harsh way of getting Poindexter to see what the recieving end feels like.

Disagree with the method but calling it hypocrisy is B.S.It's called "Fight fire with fire" and a good way to burn down the forest. :)

(Maybe if Chumpsky were all along running a secret information gathering organization and he was really only against TIA as a rival then ok that's hypocritical)

minty green

12-17-2002, 07:15 PM

There are vast functional and ethical differences between looking up somebody's personal information and posting somebody's personal information for the purpose of encouraging the harrassment of that person (or worse). A person who does the former is nosy; a person who does the latter should, frankly, be reported to the appropriate law enforcement agencies.

panamajack

12-17-2002, 07:26 PM

From Matt Smith's own take on the thing (full column here (http://www.sfweekly.com/issues/2002-12-11/smith.html/1/index.html))
(Matt Smith writes for the SF Weekly. He had the idea of spreading Poindexter's information, and John Gilmore (http://www.toad.com/gnu/) ran with it.

But Gilmore's idea -- well, I guess it was my idea, actually -- that things might get better if Poindexter were sufficiently molested began to seem more fragile every time the notion popped up on another Web site. Poindexter, after all, is the super-achieving military officer who so firmly believed in Ronald Reagan's Arms-n-Contras-n-Mullahs scheme that he was willing to become that administration's only high-level fall guy.

While going an eye-for-an-eye against elite government officials makes for great humor-column copy, it doesn't exactly fit within the canon of nonviolent social protest. And it isn't just John Poindexter's fault that Americans have been losing incrementally greater freedoms during the past two years. Every Bush voter, every senator who supported the Patriot Act, every citizen who's not in some way objecting, is complicit in this travesty.

Besides, there's another concern, voiced by a New York reader who calls him- or herself "Brew":

"I sure hope the Bush Mafia doesn't kill you. I don't put it past them."

But there's no sense turning back now; Inverse Total Information Awareness has become part of the ether. I can't retrieve it. And who knows; perhaps if enough people mull over the idea of what it might be like to have personal information used against you, Total Information Awareness will become an unbearable liability for President Bush.

In that edition (last week's), there was also a letter to the editor describing one reader's phone conversation with Poindexter's wife.

(Matt Smith was also on Democracy Now! today, though I only caught the very end of it so I missed what was said.)

I'm not sure that the abuse of the information by the people who've spread it around is any more an effective way to demonstrate the abuse of information in the TIA plan than mugging politicians who appear soft on crime would be.

TVAA

12-17-2002, 07:26 PM

On the other hand, this is public personal information, if you get my drift.

To what degree should it be considered inappropriate to share it? After all, the point of the people who are calling to protest is that even information in the public domain can be abused if it's brought into one place and then distributed, much like what Poindexter wants to do with TIA.

Unlike the anti-abortion sites that list addresses, there's no context of wanting someone to threaten/kill Poindexter in Chumpsky's post (although those who've read some of his other threads can sense that he wants Poindexter to be annoyed)... Why would it be right to contact the authorities about this?

In other words: Chumpsky may have violated rules of nettiquite and courtesy, but has he done anything legally wrong?

Bearflag70

12-17-2002, 07:50 PM

Originally posted by The Vorlon Ambassador's Aide
Chumpsky may have violated rules of nettiquite and courtesy, but has he done anything legally wrong?

Legally... no.

The OP asks a different question, however, rooted in ethics rather than law.

Bearflag70

12-17-2002, 07:53 PM

Originally posted by vibrotronica
That's very moving, Bearflag. I agree that "prying into the realm of privacy should be generally discouraged." Does Total Information Awareness discourage prying into the realm of privacy? The potential for abuse of this system is beyond my meager imaginings.

Thanks for the red herring.

TVAA

12-17-2002, 07:54 PM

Quite true, Bearflag 70.

Is it ethically wrong to be rude? :D

Bearflag70

12-17-2002, 08:08 PM

Originally posted by The Vorlon Ambassador's Aide
Quite true, Bearflag 70.

Is it ethically wrong to be rude? :D

No rudeness intended. Apologies.

There's not much else to say about the disctinction between law and ethics in the call of the OP's question.

As far as the red herring, perhaps I should elaborate. Whether the TIA unduly pries into the realm of privacy is irrelevant to whether it's OK to publish a "private" address.

To suggest that such publication is OK because the TIA is bad public policy for similar reasons falls into the fallacy of two wrongs.

TVAA

12-17-2002, 08:12 PM

I'm sorry -- I wasn't implying that *you* were being rude.

My point about bringing up legality was that a previous poster had expressed the opinion that perhaps Chumpsky should be reported to the authorities. I kinda thought that was outside the bounds of my OP... and was pointing that out.

In all seriousness: was it ethically wrong of Chumpsky to be rude?

El_Kabong

12-17-2002, 08:16 PM

1. I believe that the TIA project is something worth resisting, but I reject resistance through use of the same techniques that we profess to find so obnoxious if they were to be practiced by the government

2. I don't believe the SDMB message boards should be used to invite harassment of anyone.

ranwashingt

12-17-2002, 08:44 PM

Nonviolent protest took a whole new sway with the advent of the internet...I didn't see a whole lot of difference in what Chumpsky did, than sitting one's collective bulbous butts down in refusual of unblocking the the intrance to the Baby Seal Splatter Institute, in less than an orderly fashion.

At least nobody's gonna pull their groins when they yell go limp!
Rand

pantom

12-17-2002, 09:05 PM

My opinion of Poindexter, Ashcroft, & co is extremely...low. To put it mildly.
I see nothing wrong at all with using the same tactics against them that they see fit to use against their fellow citizens.
Justice. Instead of just us.

Mojo

12-17-2002, 09:19 PM

Originally posted by pantom
My opinion of Poindexter, Ashcroft, & co is extremely...low. To put it mildly.
I see nothing wrong at all with using the same tactics against them that they see fit to use against their fellow citizens.
Justice. Instead of just us.

You're saying that you find their behavior so morally repugnant that you're going to mimic it?

Tigers2B1

12-17-2002, 09:31 PM

panton wrote -I see nothing wrong at all with using the same tactics against them that they see fit to use against their fellow citizens.

How will that lead to the change you want? Seems you've just endorsed the tactic.

sx633

12-17-2002, 09:55 PM

I was going to submit a heartfelt post supporting the outing, but then I realized there are too many informers her. So I'm just going to say something about this:

Mojo says:

'You're saying that you find their behavior so morally repugnant that you're going to mimic it?'

President Bush announced last week that the policy of the United States People vis-a-vis terrorism now includes Preemptive Nuclear Attack.

I am Sparticus

12-17-2002, 11:36 PM

Originally posted by SuaSponte
Either the public dissemination of private information is right or it is wrong.

The hypocrisy here is Chumpsky's. He thinks what TIA is doing is wrong, and to demonstrate that, he does the wrong thing TIA is doing.
If it is wrong, it is wrong for Chumpsky, as well. But he claims that when he does it, it is not wrong.

That is hypocrisy.
I understand irony, and hypocrisy is not irony.

BTW, Chumpsky is not our only left-wing poster. If you think that, you don't pay much attention.
And one cannot assassinate that which does not exist.

Sua

Of course the information is public and publicly available on a public figure. So you are just wrong on that account: it wasn't private.

Just because something is hypocritical doesn't mean it cannot also be ironic and vice versa. Doesn't require it. So you are wrong on that point too. Maybe you could punctuate this thread with a post where you state something correctly? Hmm.

Try finding me a poster who is as left wing as Chumpsky. I post in enough political threads on the board to know that there is no regular poster anywhere near as far to the left, but out of 30,000, maybe there is an obscure one. That would be an appropriate punctuation mark.

And Chumpsky does indeed have character, and you and your little chowder society are constantly trying to assassinate it. It is you who have no character.

QUOTE]Originally posted by minty green
There are vast functional and ethical differences between looking up somebody's personal information and posting somebody's personal information for the purpose of encouraging the harrassment of that person (or worse). A person who does the former is nosy; a person who does the latter should, frankly, be reported to the appropriate law enforcement agencies. [/QUOTE]

Chumpsky posted the the link to the information without comment. You then encouarge malicious prosecution against Chumpsky for this post. I don't like what the public figure living at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave or the public figure living at the Naval Observatory are doing with respect to tax policy. I encourage everyone I know to write them complaining about their conduct. Am I suggesting harassment or petitioning my government? Should I be reported to the "appropriate law enforcement agencies?" There is a retired Navy guy named Michael Moore (not the famous crank, but the same name). He objected to policies and got a visit from the secret service and the local sheriff, who searched his home. That was illegal, unethical, immoral and tyrannical, but nobody at the SdMB seems to think it worth protesting. Instead, they continue to bash those who protest. Do these people deserve liberty? No. And they don't have it. But they don't know it yet.

barton

12-18-2002, 12:09 AM

Originally posted by minty green
There are vast functional and ethical differences between looking up somebody's personal information and posting somebody's personal information for the purpose of encouraging the harrassment of that person (or worse). A person who does the former is nosy; a person who does the latter should, frankly, be reported to the appropriate law enforcement agencies.

And under what law will they be charging such a person? Illegial telephone book usage?

Call it unethical if you want, but... geez.

Note that I myself don't like some instances of addresses being public. Today I heard on the radio about some guy who was busted for 4 grams of meth in his house. They thoughtfully mentioned his address. I thought that was highly unneccessary, especially considering he wasn't convicted yet, but I'm not going to question their legal right to do so.

By the way, I am Sparticus, I have heard about the Michael Moore incident, and I thought it was pretty damn crappy. I haven't seen the more famous MM comment yet.

pantom

12-18-2002, 12:40 AM

There is such a thing as unlisted phone numbers.
I don't believe rudeness in the defense of liberty is a vice.
Total Information Awareness.
Totalitarianism.
If you don't vehemently object to this as a free citizen of a free country, what in heaven's name would it take before you would become outraged enough to become rude? 10 years for speaking your mind? Would that be enough?
Damn, you people have to sit down & think what we're talking about here. This isn't a fine line. It's a freakin' Berlin Wall.

I am Sparticus

12-18-2002, 03:10 AM

When Bush was running for President, I, as a loyal member of my local "rent-a-mob" organized a bunch of people to go hold signs and annoy his GW ness at an event he was holding at a public school after school hours. The secret service and the local police prohibited us from holding any signs and entering onto the school grounds under threat of arrest. We posed no threat but embarassment, we were not even scruffy.

minty green

12-18-2002, 08:00 AM

Originally posted by I am Sparticus
Chumpsky posted the the link to the information without comment. You then encouarge malicious prosecution against Chumpsky for this post.He then implicitly conceded that his purpose was to harrass Poindexter: "And what makes you think that my purpose is only to harrass Poindexter?" That's a crime in most jurisdictions I'm aware of. I'm frankly amazed the guy is still here.

[/i]Originally posted by ranwashingt[/i]
I didn't see a whole lot of difference in what Chumpsky did, than sitting one's collective bulbous butts down in refusual of unblocking the the intrance to the Baby Seal Splatter Institute, in less than an orderly fashion.That would be illegal too.

Shodan

12-18-2002, 08:03 AM

I assume if I posted the address, phone number, and directions to the home of an abortion provider, that would be fine with some on the SDMB, provided I didn't make any threats in the same post.

And I assume that I Am Sparticus would also object to abortion protestors being prevented from peaceful protest on the sidewalks in front of an abortion clinic. Even if their purpose was to "annoy" the abortionists and their clients. After all, that would "pose no threat but embarassment". So it's OK, right?

Regards,
Shodan

jjimm

12-18-2002, 08:22 AM

I think some people are misinterpreting the nature of protest.

People stop work when they're protesting job losses. City authorities clamp cars that are causing an obstruction.

I don't necessarily agree with what chumpsky did, but calling it "hypocritical" is missing the point.

SuaSponte

12-18-2002, 10:24 AM

Originally posted by I am Sparticus
Try finding me a poster who is as left wing as Chumpsky. I post in enough political threads on the board to know that there is no regular poster anywhere near as far to the left, but out of 30,000, maybe there is an obscure one. That would be an appropriate punctuation mark.

I'm sure Olentzero, (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/member.php?action=getinfo&userid=402) who was providing erudite commentary from the perspective of a member of the Communist Party of the U.S.A. since before you were a gleam in the SDMB's eye, may object to you referring to him as "obscure."

Sua

Demise

12-18-2002, 10:39 AM

Originally posted by sx633
I was going to submit a heartfelt post supporting the outing, but then I realized there are too many informers her.

Unintentional comedy is the best comedy.

RTFirefly

12-18-2002, 11:09 AM

toadspittle

12-18-2002, 11:26 AM

Seems to me, basically, the question is:

Do two wrongs ever make a right? Is it ever right to fight fire with fire?

Seems to me that'll make for a pretty long debate.

minty green

12-18-2002, 11:43 AM

Originally posted by RTFirefly
minty, this is a serious question: do harassment laws really go that far?Quite possibly. Local laws may vary, but Texas Penal Code section 42.07 provides that:A person commits an offense if, with intent to harass, annoy, alarm, abuse, torment, or embarrass another, he . . . causes the telephone of another to ring repeatedly or makes repeated telephone communications anonymously or in a manner reasonably likely to harass, annoy, alarm, abuse, torment, embarrass, or offend another; . . . sends repeated electronic communications in a manner reasonably likely to harass, annoy, alarm, abuse, torment, embarrass, or offend another.The trick, of course, is whether distributing Poindexter's information with the intent to cause others to harass the guy and his family falls within the statutory prohibition. It's close enough that I'd advise any client of mine against doing it. It is certainly skating at or beyond the edge of a crime under my state's law, and I have no reason to believe it would be much different under any other state's law.

Certainly if it's ruled Constitutional for me to rent the vacant lot across from your house, and burn a cross there as a form of protected speech, I'd think the same would be true of pulling your phone number from the phone book and making it known in a different forum. That's a big darned "if." I do not expect the Supreme Court to accept that argument. If I phone with my telephone from my property for the purpose of harrassing you, you're just as harrassed as if I did it from your property and with your telephone.

ranwashingt

12-18-2002, 11:51 AM

Originally posted by sx633
I was going to submit a heartfelt post supporting the outing, but then I realized there are too many informers her.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Unintentional comedy is the best comedy.
_________________________________-

The story of my life is to have been surrounded by Facist Females, and the saddest part is, I ain't good looking enough for any of them to want to had sex with me!

"Hey I got an idea...lets just dye all the rats white and make them cute."

Your Oedipus Wrecked...Rand

Milossarian

12-18-2002, 12:01 PM

Shodan:
I assume if I posted the address, phone number, and directions to the home of an abortion provider, that would be fine with some on the SDMB, provided I didn't make any threats in the same post.
That's also under debate at the U.S. Supreme Court. (www.washtimes.com/national/20021217-896327.htm)

Mac Guffin

12-18-2002, 12:57 PM

Whoa there nelly! Is this a common thing for SCOTUS to be doing?

(From the link Milossarian posted)

The Supreme Court yesterday asked the Bush administration to file its opinion on free-speech claims by abortion protesters who distribute "wanted" posters for doctors who terminate pregnancies.

I mean, aren't they at least supposed to pretend that there is a separation of powers? Does the SCOTUS usually ask the POTUS his opinion on matters before it?

This seems odd to me.

minty green

12-18-2002, 01:08 PM

Nothing odd at all. Happens all the time. The Court is free to pay as much or as little attention to the executive branch's opinion as it wants.

stpauler

12-18-2002, 01:33 PM

Back to the OP for a sec here. I'm wondering would it make a difference if Poindexter's information wasn't publicly available (unlisted phone/addy). Would that change the ramifications of the acceptibility or is a moot issue?

pantom

12-18-2002, 06:34 PM

stpauler, shodan: the point of this little form of protest was to give the powers that be a taste of what they're doing to the rest of us. If it was unlisted, firstly, it wouldn't be part of the public domain and therefore its publishing would be merely obnoxious, rather than an illustration of the actual point. Ditto for giving out the name, address, and phone number of someone with whom you disagree on whatever the issue happens to be.
It happens to be a particular, and particularly appropriate, response to these latter day J Edgars.
Rude, but very much to the point.

Shodan

12-18-2002, 06:37 PM

So, pantom, are you in favor of treating abortion providers in this way?

Regards,
Shodan

pantom

12-18-2002, 06:53 PM

Read my reply. Stop being dense.
Or rather, here, since obviously you'll insist on being dense: Poindexter is a public citizen, and as such, is subject to forms of protest about his actions that a private citizen is not. The form of protest about which we are talking is a direct illustration of why what he is doing is obnoxious and wrong.
An abortion provider is a doctor. A private citizen making a living. Publishing the particulars of such a person is not in the least related to what you are protesting, first of all. Secondly, as a private citizen the person in question would have a right to insist on being left alone.
If you have a problem with abortion, which you obviously do, the place to take your protest is the clinic, not the doctor's house.
And no, I don't think the laws that have been put in place to effectively prevent protesters at abortion clinics are in any way right, before you start down that line.
Why you don't get any of this from the start is beyond me.

stpauler

12-18-2002, 07:06 PM

Hmm, it seems that if you wanted to appropriately exact revenge against Poindexter, you'd go through his trash, find out what his credit score is, where he buys groceries, where he flies et al. I haven't seen Poindexter posting people's addresses online or in articles. It's faulty syllogistic logic that thinks it makes it the same by giving out his personal info online or in an article.

Urban Ranger

12-19-2002, 06:35 AM

What is the exact problem, other than some vaguely alleged impropriety? Is this some sort of witch-hunt raised over disclosing public information?

BMalion

12-19-2002, 08:20 AM

Here's my two cents, I am a republican and yet I laughed my boo-tocks off when I saw Chumpsky's OP. Way to go! As much as I am for most of the president's policies I also feel that there is a place for healthy protest and ghadflies are very welcome in my opinion. Isn't that how we, as a nation, found out about Watergate? by someone 'unethically' disclosing information that was priveledged? I think I'm making my point in a clumsy way so forgive me.

Another point, what does it matter if the 'gummint' has every scrap of information on all of us anyway? So big brother knows I shop at Target, like Gilbert and Sullivan and read weird websites, what can they do with this information when it's multiplied by the millions and millions? Just how powerful and dangerous does anyone think they are?
Sheesh.

Shodan

12-19-2002, 08:49 AM

Read my reply. Stop being dense.
Or rather, here, since obviously you'll insist on being dense: Poindexter is a public citizen, and as such, is subject to forms of protest about his actions that a private citizen is not. OK, how about the head of Planned Parenthood, or NARAL?

I'm so dense I don't even know what you mean by "public citizen". Someone who is in the public eye? NARAL sure fits that. Elected official? Nope, that would leave Poindexter out. Any government employee? You could argue that any abortion provider who receives government funds fits that description.

What I would be interested in would be a discussion of the "forms of protest" you mention, that someone like Poindexter should be subjected to, but a public accomodation like an abortion clinic should not. You seem to be arguing that nobody should be allowed to coordinate an abortion protest by publishing the addresses of such clinics, but should be allowed to coordinate protests against Poindexter by doing the same to his private residence.

Perhaps you could explain your principles. I am so dense that it appears to be "publish their personal data if I don't like them, but not if I do".

Regards,
Shodan

stpauler

12-19-2002, 10:54 AM

Here's my thought process behind the whole thing (and it requires me speaking for Chumpsky, so please chime in if ya disagree).
1)Poindexter's policies and actions are very invasive. I totally disagree with the administration's decision re: this.
2)In an effort to ride Michael Moore-esque brand of subversiveness, Chumpsky copies the actions of "one of the SF weeklies" (I quoted that since the only source of that happening that I know of is in this thread, I can't verify it's veracity) This action is a thinly veiled attempt to cause harrassment of Poindexter. Whether someone calls/writes/stalks Poindexter isn't the point. It does cause information to be more disbursed.
3)This action brings Chumpsky down to Kohlberg's level one of morality. The ol' eye for an eye. (but as I elucidated up above, this isn't exactly eye for an eye.)
4)I'm pretty sure that Chumpsky wouldn't want Poindexter to start posting Chumpsky's address and home phone number as well as his viewpoints and criminal history on newsmax.com, fox news or other righty news sources.
So I think that this is unethical on a couple levels. It's sinking down to their level, it's violated someone's privacy, and it's possibly inciting harrassment or worse. My first reaction to the whole thing is that it's funny that Poindexter got his. I get the same giggles watching The Awful Truth when Michael Moore has his pilgrims in tow calling everyone sinners and making Henry Hyde's secretary rather uneasy. Do I think it's right or ethical? Not a bit.

Olentzero

12-24-2002, 10:20 AM

Originally posted by SuaSponte
I'm sure Olentzero, (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/member.php?action=getinfo&userid=402) who was providing erudite commentary from the perspective of a member of the Communist Party of the U.S.A. since before you were a gleam in the SDMB's eye, may object to you referring to him as "obscure."Slight tangent, then on to the meat of the thread.

I am not now, nor have I ever been, affiliated with the CP-USA. I wouldn't touch that group of paleolithic Stalinists with a ten-foot pole. If you want to point me out as a high-profile leftist on the SDMB, Sua, more power to you. But get your facts straight first.

So - are Chumpsky's actions morally or ethically justifiable? I don't know, myself. I certainly applaud the fact that he's willing to act on his outrage over an attempt to strengthen the US government at the expense of the country's population - on that grounds alone it could be ethically justified.

But what are the effects - the consequences? Could Poindexter really be convinced that the TIA is a bad idea based on an increased volume of phone calls? Probably not. Letter-writing campaigns aren't very effective, either.

Furthermore, you now create the opportunity for a caller to get busted for harassment - I'd always heard that harassment over the phone was a federal offense, but I don't have any cites for it - which means that someone who could be expending their energy on other protests and activism now has to spend the majority of their time defending themselves in court.

Overall, then, publishing Poindexter's contact info on the SDMB - policy violations notwithstanding - doesn't seem to me to be ethically justifiable. It doesn't stand a chance of achieving the intended goal, and in fact can weaken the side seeking to achieve it.

pantom

12-24-2002, 05:32 PM

Shodan: Read the post.
Read the post.
Read the post.
OK?
It says: protest at the abortion clinic.
You say: protest at the abortion clinic.
Find me where we disagree.

The Ryan

12-26-2002, 06:40 PM

BTW, in the abortion case, it was not simply an issue of publishing aborion providers' personal information. The website basically said "Here is the personal information of some abortion providers that have been killed by anti-abortion activists. Here is the personal information of some abortion providers who have not been killed yet. Not that we're suggesting anything. Wink, wink."

LokiTheDog

12-27-2002, 12:32 AM

Originally posted by minty green
He then implicitly conceded that his purpose was to harrass Poindexter: "And what makes you think that my purpose is only to harrass Poindexter?" That's a crime in most jurisdictions I'm aware of. I'm frankly amazed the guy is still here.

Minty Green, I have to defend Chumpsky here. You have misrepresented what he said. Take another look at the syntax of the sentence. I can't read his mind to know what he meant by that line, but looking strictly at the placement of the word "only", there is no implied threat there. If he had instead said, "And what makes you think my purpose is to only harrass Poindexter?" then that would imply that he intended to harrass Poindexter AND do something else to him. But the way it is written, it means he simply had other motives, not that they involved Poindexter directly, if at all. His other motives could have been higher than the petty harrassment that Sua ascribed to him.

I would have defended myself from her remarks as well, if I were him.

And by the way, even the words you've put into Chumpsky's mouth fall way short of the definition of harassment that you provided. When you look at what he actually said, instead of what you said he said, only a lawyer would go screaming for prosecution. :D

So whether it's on just a technicality of syntax, or a clear failure to meet the legal definition, I'd laugh you out of court if I were presiding.