Not being a US citizen, so not directly my problem, I think that home addresses shouldn’t have been part.
I know that you can find them with a few minutes’ browsing, but you wouldn’t like me to post your address on your car.
If the only consequence if to simplifly boycotts, go ahead.
Not crying over these. They vandalized people’s live, hell they want to essentially void the 18,000 same-sex marriages that already happened in the State. How cruel is that?
Of course, this is is not supportable by any stretch. But just because some assholes use the information for inapporpriate and illegal purposes does not necessarily mean that the information should not be public.
Furt, thanks for that link. The firing of Eckern was one of the saddest, hateful things I have ever heard. I am newly relocated to Sacramento and the story really made me stop and think about this. If this man had lost his job because he contributed $1,000.00 to support a pro-choice initiative, we’d be hearing very different arguments here.
We’re talking about losing your job over a thousand dollar donation. A donation made by a private citizen based on his religious beliefs. I disagree with his beliefs, but I do believe he has the right to make that donation and he should be able to make that donation without fear of retribution.
Not at all. I don’t think the judge in California had much choice here - he was constrained by the law. But this does point out that said laws have consequences - among them a reaction to their application.
And it is the case that, whatever we might feel about the topic, political speech is being litigated around the country - anywhere from radio hosts in Washington State who were sued over their support of a ballot proposition to the aforementioned FEC wrangling. Personally, I don’t like it - but I can easily see a court declaring a blog or a radio show an in-kind contribution that must be regulated - it would certainly fit into the recent pattern of things.
Several years ago, I attended a conference for the Institute for Politics, Democracy and the Internet (IPDI) where the Director of said organization, Carol Darr, made the case that online communities (blogs in particular) could be said to be making in-kind contributions to political campaigns. She went so far as to recommend that political bloggers register as lobbyists.
Moto, I suggest you Google Darr’s name. You’ll quickly see how well that idea went over.
When you pay into a political campaign, you pay people to speak on your behalf. Seems fair that it would have the same basic consequences as if you just, well, spoke up at a town hall meeting or somesuch.
As for the Prop 8 supporters, they basically went to court to change the rules after the fact. Well, that’s not how it works, is it?
Also, their campaign systematically tried to use the same sort of information to extort contributions from businesses who had donated to gay rights organizations. In fact, the Prop 8 supporters are now trying to suppress their contributors’ data citing fear that their own tactics might be used against them.
I have little use for Prop 8 supporters as it stands, but this specific hypocrisy frankly galls me enough that I’m damn happy they lost their case.
They made other people suffer so that they could score bonus points with their god. To which I say: Do your own damn suffering, if you want to reap heavenly rewards.
So you’re cool with vandalism for political purposes? Do you apply this across the board, or just to people you really don’t like much?
A frequent target of vandalism are synagogues - do you not cry over that as well?
Maybe they could just burn a cross on their lawn.
So the websites listing the names and work locations of abortion providers are OK with you?
Regards,
Shodan
Listen - I posted my original response to get people to think. Tactics being employed here can be similarly employed against them, or legislation can be passed to make them unavailable to all.
Press this too much and the backlash may be worse than the original vote - much as the Prop 8 supporters are finding out now.
It would be better, as observed earlier, to win over your opponents rather than vandalizing churches or pressuring their employment. You won’t win over everyone, but you’ll get enough fence sitters to prevail.
Press this too far and the support you have in public might evaporate when people really have a chance to express a private opinion - the voting booth.
No, I just said I wasn’t crying over it.
I suppose it should be made clear that when you make a contribution it is part of the public record. It may be, I just don;t rememebr that being the case when I did it.
The abortion-clinic bombers will be glad to know you endorse their logic.
“Hi, my name is Eckern, and I just spent $1000 to make sure you’re denied the right to marry the person you love. I trust that won’t be a hindrance for us cooperating on this project?”
Who’s pressing? Prop 8 opponents are simply asking that the rules be upheld and no exception be made. The rules were put in place in 1974.
You did read the part you actually quoted didn’t you? Of course you did, but here you are doing your usual bullshite and trying to get the argument all turned around.
just in case you didn’t actually read what you quoted, here’s the part that’s meaningful to your response.
Seriously. I mean, it’s sad that the guy lost his job and all, but he worked in theatre, ferchrissake. You don’t see the head of the Beef Council donating to PETA.
Here’s a list of baby killers’ addresses, but please use it for legitimate purposes only.
Are you arguing that people who donate money to political causes should have anonymity?
Yes, I saw that. And you stated that you did not feel that the information should be kept private, even if “assholes use the information for inapporpriate(sic) and illegal purposes”.
So, even if assholes use the information for inappropriate and illegal purposes, the names of abortion providers should not be kept private.
Or are you now arguing that information should be kept private if assholes use it for inappropriate and illegal purposes?
Or are you doing what I suspect you are doing, which is arguing that even if assholes use the information for inappropriate and illegal purposes, that’s OK as long as the assholes agree with you?
Regards,
Shodan
You don’t seem to be the type to argue that laws should be dictated by blackmail from the criminal class, Shodan. Should guns be illegal because criminals will use them for inappropriate and illegal purposes?
No.
Regards,
Shodan