And it was wrong when they did it, too.
I don’t think anyone here is disputing the legality of the action; given the law, I don’t think the judge had any choice. It may be advisable to change the law, but that would have other complications.
What we’re questioning is whether or not this practice is a good direction to take our political discourse. Whether it is advisable, both for the country as a whole and even for progressive social causes themselves.
On the Florida Turnpike near Ocala, there was for a long time (still there AFAIK) a billboard put up by some guy with a grudge against the local sheriff. I listed a phone number and told people to call the sheriff and ask why he was persecuting innocent people (or some such). As I understand it, the sheriff had tried to get the sign taken down, but the guy owned the land and courts ruled he had the right. I don’t have a problem with that: the sheriff is an elected official.
What I don’t want to see is the day when people put up billboards saying “Private Citizen Larry J. Flinders of Podunk, North Florida has given money to support the killing of babies (right of perverts to molest children, help the terrorists win, etc.). Let him know what you think.”
Based on the arguments presented here, progressives wouldn’t have problem with those signs. I’m a bit dubious.
Ideally, people should be able to segregate a person’s political beliefs from their personal beliefs. I voted no on prop 8, but I don’t hate the people who voted yes (or gave money to that cause), and I don’t want to see them financially ruined. I just want to see their minds changed.
So, in a perfect world, I wouldn’t care about the anonymity. But, as I’m seeing here, where apparently vandalism and extortion are, if not supported, understandable outcomes, then, yes, it should be anonymous.
I will think twice about donating to the next pro gay marriage amendment because I don’t want these tactics used against me. This isn’t the way it should be, but it’s the way it is.
Because that wouldn’t make any sense, right? It’s not a bright way to design laws, based on how people might break them. It applies to donation laws too – the public interest is better served by transparency in political financing than it is by cowering in a corner because there are bad and crazy people in the world.
Why would an abortion provider want to be totally anonymous? You wouldn’t get any clients that way.
But an abortion provider is not a political donor (unless they actually, you know, donate money to a political cause) and is not part of the topic of this thread, which is the question of privacy of political donors.
There are laws in place against harassment, vandalism and assault, and the people committing harassment vandalism and assault against both political donors and private businesses should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Perhaps there should be some refinement of those laws to solve the problem of people finding new ways of harassing people through the internet.
But trying to solve the problem by removing the information from the public domain completely is not the answer. This is what I’m reading **yojimbo’s **point to be.
The workplaces of abortion providers are, typically, places where abortions are provided. They’re not hard to find. This is information that’s in the phone book, ferchrissake.
That said, of course it’s wrong for anybody to incite others to act criminally with the information, whatever the cause in question. There are legitimate uses for the information so merely listing it on a cause-oriented site isn’t incitement, however.
The description of a pro-choice donor as a “supporter of baby-killers” is inflammatory language. It could be argued that it borders on slander.
The stated mission from the website in the OP of donors to Prop 8 is “We want the country to know who gave the $36 million to the Yes on Proposition 8 campaign that ended same-sex marriage in California.” Is that inflammatory, or is that an accurate description?
I still consider donations on par with speaking up. We vote in secret, but I definitely see a moral equivalence between standing up to speak and hiring someone else to stand up to speak.
We have laws against harassment, stalking, vandalism, assault, murder, hate crimes, libel, etc. They should be enforced.
We have laws that declare political donation should take place in the clear light of day. It should also be enforced. How else are we to know who is influencing our elections? I find it disturbing that a Utah-based organization is unabashedly donating millions to influence a California law. What if it were donors from China? India? Cuba? Russia? We have to know where the money comes from. It’s odd that “we need to know the names of all of Obama’s donors!” was such a rallying cry for the conservatives in the campaign, but “we need to conceal the names of Prop 8’s donors!” is a rallying cry now.
When the one crossed over into the other — when political donations engender political retribution — then enforce whatever laws are appropriate.
It strikes me that any law that hopes to conceal political donations basically says, “I don’t want people to not like me. I have a fundamental right to make a profit from my political enemies. I do not want my political views to harm me in any way, even when my views are meant to harm others.”
To hell with that. Laws should not be erected to protect against thought crimes. If I boycott a business, if I want not to give my money to someone I don’t like, that’s my choice as a consumer; if instead I vandalize the business or assault its owner, or harassing with hate mail, then I am breaking the law.
FWIW, I do agree (if it’s not clear from my other posts) I do agree that the site in the OP is douchebaggy, especially adding the phone numbers, if I don’t agree that it crosses the line into “this should be illegal.”
I defend their right to make it known that the information exists however. A flashy page, with their stated mission, with direct links to the pages on the SOS site, I would have very little problem with.
If people break the law they should be punished by the system.
Political donations are, by law, publically available. If someone uses that information to break the law they should be punished. My opinions on the cause behind the donation is irrelevant.
If you don’t think that political donations should be public then get involved and get the law changed. Until then all donations are made public no matter what the cause.
Upthread, it was suggested that voting yes was “vandalism” of people’s lives. I was working off that.
“Larry J Flinders of Thistown, AL, who is employed at Floyd’s Menswear store, gave money to keep partial birth abortion legal. This a procedure in which [graphic, accurate description omitted]. Actions have consequences. Let Larry J Flinders know what you think of his support of this procedure.”
Cool with that on a billboard a mile from Larry’s house?
I don’ t think anyone here denies it’s legal. And I don’t think people are so upset announcing that they have the list. the issue is taking the list and publicizing it for purpose of shaming, and whether that is a good thing to do.
It depends what you mean by cool? I didsagree and would probably think the guy is a moral midget. But I wouldn’t vandalize the billboard or petition to get it taken down. There is a good chance I would not patronize Floyd’s Menswear either. That’s my perogative, of course.
It’s worth pointing out that not a single one of those criminal acts was in any way related to the publishing of the names of Prop. 8 supporters.
It’s also worth pointing out that, when these tactics were used against gay rights supporters, we didn’t whine like a bunch of fucking children about how unfair it was that our donations were public knowledge. Man up, you goddamned pussies, and stand behind your beliefs.
Meaning you don’t think they’re doing anything wrong – not legally, but ethically. You regard it as a useful and healthy contribution to the national public dialogus.
So what, you think it can’t go the other way? There was that recent rape case in the Bay Area where it does seem that the victim was targeted because she was a lesbian - she had rainbow stickers on her car and her attackers employed anti-gay slurs as they were attacking her.
That’s okay, though - she ought to just man up, in Miller’s world.
Why is it that every time you have a nice, clean thread, someone just has to drag in a colossal strawman? That’s not what Miller wrote, it’s not what Miller meant , and you’re smart enough to know it.