# A public service: Names of Proposition 8 supporters **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [February 4, 2009, 3:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-public-service-names-of-proposition-8-supporters/484362 "2009-02-04T03:12:49Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![joyfool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/df788c/32.png) [@joyfool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/joyfool)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2009, 9:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-public-service-names-of-proposition-8-supporters/484362/121 "2009-02-04T21:44:42Z")
Did the contributions have to be of a certain amount to fall under the proviso of the law that could then have them published? I mean, just going off the linked information in the OP, I don’t recall seeing anything under $4,950. Am I interpreting the whole thing correctly? ---
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2009, 9:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-public-service-names-of-proposition-8-supporters/484362/122 "2009-02-04T21:58:20Z")
> [@Jenaroph](#): > > I’m saying that your examples are not equivalent. > > I’m not sure where we got from posting a list of names on a website that one must seek out to read to singling out one private citizen in gigantically public and misleading ways - oh, looking back it was you who brought up that idea - because they are not equivalent. On what \*principle \*are they different? That’s the point I’m trying to make. If there is a spectrum with, on one end, “small website with few hits” to, on the other end, “national ad campaign” at what point does it stop being acceptable, and under what principle? My assumption is that even most people who support the website would agree that the billboards are out of bounds. If so, and if there is no difference in principle between the two, then it supports my contention that we shouldn’t do any of it. **GO** also doesn’t see one, but he seems to say we can do all of it. > [@](#): > > The information of Mr. Hypothetical Rural Gay Rights Donor is already every bit as public as the names of the people on the existing Prop 8 donors list. Yes, it is. But his neighbors and family are probably not actively seeking out whether or not someone in their town, any more than the gay neighbors of someone who quietly donated to Prop 8 are actively seeking out that info. If people want to look into that for their own purposes, there’s no stopping them. What people object to – on moral grounds, not legal ones – is third parties going out and deliberately trying to get people to ostracize other members of the community. I don’t think that is long-term productive for any cause, or for the nation as a whole. > [@](#): > > “Framing the issue in the worst possible way” once again is opens the billboard owner/flyer distributer/Goodyear blimp hirer to a lawsuit over libel and/or slander. It is not the same as the simple statement that “Mr. HRGRD donated to Citizens Against Prop 8.” No – I specifically excluded any kind of dishonesty. Its “framing” to call supporters of prop 8 “bigots,” and it’s framing to say that allowing gay rights “legalizes perversion.” I may agree with the first and not the second, but that’s just my point of view, not some kind of empirical fact. Neither comes close to actionable slander. > [@](#): > > I’ve already said that I think the website is douchebaggy, and suggested that perhaps the laws regarding harassment should be changed to reflect internet campaigns. If enough people think that’s important, they will. Why you’re trying to pinpoint me further, I’m not sure. You responded to me in post #84, and seemed to not be following my line of argument, so I explained what I was doing. I’m only trying to “pin down” people who want to say this incident is OK, but would be unwilling to extend the principle to others. If that shoe doesn’t fit you, it’s not yours. ---
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2009, 10:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-public-service-names-of-proposition-8-supporters/484362/123 "2009-02-04T22:06:39Z")
> [@woodstockbirdybird](#): > > Do you not see that publicizing something about a resident of some hick town _on a billboard in that very town_ is entirely different than posting information about campaign contributors on the internet, where those contributors’ friends and neighbors would have to actively seek out such information in the first place? Not really the same thing at all. Okay, I’ll accept that as a reasonable distinction. What if they just published all the names of every donor in a full page ad in several major newspapers? What if it was just the website, but they ran TV ads that told people to go online? How about a mass email campaign encouraging people to “see if your neighbors support sodomy?” The last is not far from what this campaign is already doing, just in reverse. I’m not being flippant – I really do think this is an ugly road we’re talking about going down, and once we start I don’t see (under current law) any obvious off-ramps. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2009, 10:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-public-service-names-of-proposition-8-supporters/484362/124 "2009-02-04T22:11:44Z")
> [@furt](#): > > On what \*principle \*are they different? That’s the point I’m trying to make. If there is a spectrum with, on one end, “small website with few hits” to, on the other end, “national ad campaign” at what point does it stop being acceptable, and under what principle? My assumption is that even most people who support the website would agree that the billboards are out of bounds. If so, and if there is no difference in principle between the two, then it supports my contention that we shouldn’t do any of it. So, if you can’t defend something taken to extremes, you can’t defend doing it in moderation? Isn’t that a bit like saying, “If you’re not okay with drinking yourself into a coma, you shouldn’t be okay with having a glass of wine with dinner?” ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2009, 10:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-public-service-names-of-proposition-8-supporters/484362/125 "2009-02-04T22:16:02Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > So, if you can’t defend something taken to extremes, you can’t defend doing it in moderation? I think some of us are saying just because it is legal doesn’t make it right - a notion you are likely intimately acquainted with by now. ---
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2009, 10:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-public-service-names-of-proposition-8-supporters/484362/126 "2009-02-04T22:23:42Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > So, if you can’t defend something taken to extremes, you can’t defend doing it in moderation? Isn’t that a bit like saying, “If you’re not okay with drinking yourself into a coma, you shouldn’t be okay with having a glass of wine with dinner?” I’m saying you should be able to explain where exactly the difference is, and why the line is drawn there. There is a definable difference between having a drink and getting drunk. There is a definable difference between being drunk and drinking yourself into a coma. What is the definable difference between what this list’s supporters are doing, and someone else creating and promoting a “Find the Fag Lovers” website? ---
**Author:** ![Algher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Algher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Algher)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2009, 10:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-public-service-names-of-proposition-8-supporters/484362/127 "2009-02-04T22:32:56Z")
Election issues that are public: - Your donation above a certain threshold. - Your party registration - If you voted I would not change that. If someone uses that information to commit a crime, they should be prosecuted. If someone uses that information to shame you - that sucks. My concern is what to do when someone uses that information to boycott your place of work, and you get fired for that. At that point we are effectively firing someone for their political beliefs - and that does not sound like a good thing at all. However, I do not know how to balance that with the need to make money if the boycott is effective. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2009, 10:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-public-service-names-of-proposition-8-supporters/484362/128 "2009-02-04T22:39:09Z")
> [@furt](#): > > I’m saying you should be able to explain where exactly the difference is, and why the line is drawn there. Okay, that’s a fair distinction. > [@](#): > > What is the definable difference between what this list’s supporters are doing, and someone else creating and promoting a “Find the Fag Lovers” website? As I said in my first post, there is no difference. Except, of course, in how the people who were on the receiving end of those tactics reacted. ---
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2009, 11:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-public-service-names-of-proposition-8-supporters/484362/129 "2009-02-04T23:13:20Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > As I said in my first post, there is no difference. And so you are okay with “shaming” as a general political tactic by all sides on any issue? I appreciate the consistency, but I see nothing but rancor, hostility and pain coming from that. It sounds safe enough if you’re a gay person in West Hollywood getting a Mormon restaurant manager fired. I suspect it sounds a bit different to a closeted gay man living in a small town in the Mojave. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2009, 11:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-public-service-names-of-proposition-8-supporters/484362/130 "2009-02-04T23:30:43Z")
> [@Fiveyearlurker](#): > > The “No on 8” people did a poor job. I live in San Francisco. Everywhere you looked there were signs and people handing out flyers. The Castro was filled with this. It was great to watch and we all got to feel great about ourselves, but it was preaching to the choir. Very few in San Francisco were voting yes. . Actually, not that many in SF were voting at all. SF didn’t have a very good voter turn-out rate, about average for the state. San Diego had 5% more voters as a %, and voted “yes” on 8. > **[Elections and Voter Information :: California Secretary of State](https://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/)** > **[Elections and Voter Information :: California Secretary of State](https://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/)** We only needed 600000 more votes to defeat Prop 8. SF could have easily provided 10% of that with a better turn-out. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2009, 11:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-public-service-names-of-proposition-8-supporters/484362/131 "2009-02-04T23:38:42Z")
I also want to point out that the Yes on 8 crowd started it: > **[CA Prop 8 backers= extortion?](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=489417)** > > Prop 8 is a prop that will ban gay marriage in CA. Here’s a news story about the backers of it: http://opinion.latimes.com/opinionla/2008/10/same-sex-marria.html \*Prop. 8 directors somehow saw this as justification for sending letters to about... "[Archive blogs](http://opinion.latimes.com/opinionla...ex-marria.html) Prop. 8 directors somehow saw this as justification for sending letters to about three dozen companies that donated to the opposite campaign. OK, we’re all for free speech, and complaining about someone else’s closely held beliefs is fair game. But in this case, the Yes on 8 people demanded equal contributions to their campaign, or they would “out” the donor: “Make a donation of a like amount to [ProtectMarriage.com](http://ProtectMarriage.com) which will help us correct this error,” reads the letter. “Were you to elect not to donate comparably, it would be a clear indication that you are in opposition to traditional marriage. … The names of any companies and organizations that choose not to donate in like manner to [ProtectMarriage.com](http://ProtectMarriage.com) but have given to Equality California will be published.” The pro-8 campaign continues to confuse support for same-sex marriage with lack of support for traditional marriage." ---
**Author:** ![photopat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/e95f7d/32.png) [@photopat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/photopat)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2009, 11:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-public-service-names-of-proposition-8-supporters/484362/132 "2009-02-04T23:40:26Z")
> [@Mr.Moto](#): > > [Link.](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A35257-2004Sep20.html) > > So again - if I were to sue claiming that the _Reader’s_ website activities constituted an in-kind contribution and demanded the names of subscribers (who after all donated money) and the identities of prominent posters - you’d be fine with this? Have you disclosed your identity here prior to this? Did you do so to everyone on the boards or were you careful about it? > > Just something to think of as we all look to out each other. I’d be fine with it. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2009, 11:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-public-service-names-of-proposition-8-supporters/484362/133 "2009-02-04T23:43:45Z")
> [@furt](#): > > And so you are okay with “shaming” as a general political tactic by all sides on any issue? If the people who donated money to Prop. 8 believe they did the morally correct thing in supporting the proposition, how can you shame them by telling others what they did? > [@](#): > > I appreciate the consistency, but I see nothing but rancor, hostility and pain coming from that. Yes, that’s pretty much unavoidable when the majority of society decides that a minority doesn’t deserve equal rights under the law. You can’t really have a law like Proposition 8 without the rancor, hostility, and pain. That is, let’s face it, the point behind the proposition in the first place: to remind gays that we are not as good as straight people. Kind of hard to stay friendly in the face of something like that. The hostility is baked into the debate. Quibbling about donor lists isn’t going to make it go away. > [@](#): > > It sounds safe enough if you’re a gay person in West Hollywood getting a Mormon restaurant manager fired. I suspect it sounds a bit different to a closeted gay man living in a small town in the Mojave. Then I’d recommend that gay Mojavian not donate money to gay causes. If he’s that afraid of his neighbors, he’d be better off saving up his money so he can afford to move some place where he can live openly and honestly. In the long run, that’d do more good for gay rights than any monetary contribution he could make. ---
**Author:** ![Yookeroo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/yookeroo/32/323_2.png) [@Yookeroo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Yookeroo)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2009, 7:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-public-service-names-of-proposition-8-supporters/484362/134 "2009-02-05T07:51:07Z")
> [@The\_Flying\_Dutchman](#): > > What consequences do you see as deserving ? Taking a financial hit is a good one. > [@Lobohan](#): > > Sorry, you’re wrong. Being against gay marriage is exactly the same as being against interracial marriage. It makes you a grade-A shitheel. You can pretend it’s about language or history, but in reality, you think that people you find icky shouldn’t have the rights you do. That’s Unamerican, it’s cowardly and it’s completely without merit. > > It’s okay to withhold your money from bigots. I wouldn’t go to dentist who was a neo-nazi and I wouldn’t go to an accountant who thinks his particular brand of ignorant religious hate should be legislated into law specifically to remove the rights of people he dislikes. Right. If there were people wanting to reinstate Jim Crow laws, I’d sure want to know who was paying this so I could avoid doing business with them. > [@Jane\_D\_oh](#): > > Religious beliefs are matters of faith and are highly personal. Until they donate money to make their religious beliefs into law. That’s very public > [@Jane\_D\_oh](#): > > The guy in question worked with the Sacramento Theatre company for 25 years. In 25 years no one guessed he was a _fucking prejudiced piece of shit_. How do you think he managed to keep that a secret? I know pieces of shit and they usually tip their hand pretty quickly. 25 years is a long time to hold a full house and keep your poker face. I can’t think of a single piece of shit that could do that. One way the bigots tip their hands is by giving money get Prop 8 passed. > [@Jane\_D\_oh](#): > > If you look back at what I’m saying, you’ll see that I am not against gay marriage, I am against the attacks on people who have exercised their rights as citizens and supported causes they believe, causes which they have a right to believe, regardless of whether you or I or anyone else agrees with them. You aren’t saying they don’t have the right to their beliefs, are you? No one ever said that. > [@furt](#): > > What people object to – on moral grounds, not legal ones – is third parties going out and deliberately trying to get people to ostracize other members of the community. I don’t think that is long-term productive for any cause, or for the nation as a whole. I do. Going back 50 years or so, wouldn’t it have been productive to ostracize KKK members? ---
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2009, 8:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-public-service-names-of-proposition-8-supporters/484362/135 "2009-02-05T08:03:55Z")
> [@Yookeroo](#): > > I do. Going back 50 years or so, wouldn’t it have been productive to ostracize KKK members? Depends on the specific time and place, but in some, absolutely. Going back 50 years or so, wouldn’t it have been productive, from their POV, for the KKK to publicize which white people were “nigger-lovers,” and which blacks were getting “uppity?” The concern is not that the tactic is ineffective; the concern is that it WILL be effective, causing the other side to use it in a bigger and better form. ---
**Author:** ![Sailboat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sailboat/32/461_2.png) [@Sailboat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sailboat)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2009, 2:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-public-service-names-of-proposition-8-supporters/484362/136 "2009-02-05T14:04:16Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > I also want to point out that the Yes on 8 crowd started it: > [CA Prop 8 backers= extortion? - The BBQ Pit - Straight Dope Message Board](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=489417) > > "[Archive blogs](http://opinion.latimes.com/opinionla...ex-marria.html) > Prop. 8 directors somehow saw this as justification for sending letters to about three dozen companies that donated to the opposite campaign. OK, we’re all for free speech, and complaining about someone else’s closely held beliefs is fair game. But in this case, the Yes on 8 people demanded equal contributions to their campaign, or they would “out” the donor: > > “Make a donation of a like amount to [ProtectMarriage.com](http://ProtectMarriage.com) which will help us correct this error,” reads the letter. “Were you to elect not to donate comparably, it would be a clear indication that you are in opposition to traditional marriage. … The names of any companies and organizations that choose not to donate in like manner to [ProtectMarriage.com](http://ProtectMarriage.com) but have given to Equality California will be published.” > > The pro-8 campaign continues to confuse support for same-sex marriage with lack of support for traditional marriage." Well, that’s that, then. Can’t argue that it was okay for one side to do it, but not for the other to retaliate. This should pretty effectively silence complaints about the OP. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2009, 2:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-public-service-names-of-proposition-8-supporters/484362/137 "2009-02-05T14:18:29Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > I also want to point out that the Yes on 8 crowd started it: > [CA Prop 8 backers= extortion? - The BBQ Pit - Straight Dope Message Board](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=489417) Good point. And in that thread: > [@CA Prop 8 backers= extortion?](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ca-prop-8-backers-extortion/469416/1): > > Umm- does this not smell a great deal like blackmail or extortion? > [@CA Prop 8 backers= extortion?](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ca-prop-8-backers-extortion/469416/10): > > Yes, it does, and it’s contemptible. I thought it was contemptible then, and I think the reverse tactic is also contemptible. You thought the original was worthy of disdain, too. ---
**Author:** ![Cheesesteak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cheesesteak/32/3694_2.png) [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2009, 2:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-public-service-names-of-proposition-8-supporters/484362/138 "2009-02-05T14:32:21Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I thought it was contemptible then, and I think the reverse tactic is also contemptible. > > You thought the original was worthy of disdain, too. It’s not a “reverse tactic”. Yes on 8 was trying to extort money from SSM supporters by threatening to publish their names. SSM supporters are not trying to extort money or blackmail anyone, they’re just looking to publicize the names of folks who supported Yes on 8. As an analogy, I have a picture of a certain swimmer sucking on a glass device that, if made public, may or may not cost that swimmer millions of dollars in endorsements. If I contact said swimmer and ask him to “donate” money to my cause, or I’ll release the picture, that’s called blackmail and it’s a crime. If I give the picture to a newspaper because I think his behavior is reprehensible, and everyone should know what kind of asshole he is, that’s not a crime. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2009, 2:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-public-service-names-of-proposition-8-supporters/484362/139 "2009-02-05T14:59:14Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I thought it was contemptible then, and I think the reverse tactic is also contemptible. If and when somebody actually attempts to engage in the reverse tactic, do let us know. Be sure to include the text of the associated letters (at least, the specific portion of the text that demands a payoff in return for inaction) to document the fact that it **is** , in fact, equivalent to the Yes On 8 extortion tactics. Edit. Ninja’d, I see. Really, it’s a bit embarrassing for two people to immediately recognize a lawyer’s ignorance of a basic legal element of what does and does not constitute “extortion”. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2009, 3:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-public-service-names-of-proposition-8-supporters/484362/140 "2009-02-05T15:12:06Z")
> [@Cheesesteak](#): > > It’s not a “reverse tactic”. Yes on 8 was trying to extort money from SSM supporters by threatening to publish their names. SSM supporters are not trying to extort money or blackmail anyone, they’re just looking to publicize the names of folks who supported Yes on 8. Well - I don’t have to like the methods of the Yes on 8 people to find the methods of the No on 9 crowd similarly wrong. But even apart from all of that - it seems to me that what drives all of this is an unintended consequence of finance disclosure. [Gigi Brienza](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/29/AR2007062902264.html) gave money to the Nader and Edwards campaigns - and then the nutcases at Stop Huntington Animal Cruelty publicized her name and address on their website. The unfortunate thing is that she didn’t work at Huntington and didn’t even know her company did business with them - she worked for Bristol Meyers Squibb. That didn’t stop her from living in fear for years - SHAC firebombs the houses of people even tangentially connected to their target. And again, while this information could have been obtained anywhere, in this specific case it was obtained through donation records. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-public-service-names-of-proposition-8-supporters/484362.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-public-service-names-of-proposition-8-supporters/484362.md?page=8)