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?
I’m sure Olentzero, 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.”
minty, this is a serious question: do harassment laws really go that far?
Given the cross-burning case recently argued before the Supremes, I’d think there’d be a live Constitutional question here as to the validity of those laws.
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.
Quite possibly. Local laws may vary, but Texas Penal Code section 42.07 provides that:
[quote]
A person commits an offense if, with intent to harass, annoy, alarm, abuse, torment, or embarrass another, he . . . [ul][li]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.[/ul][/li][/quote]
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.
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.
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
Whoa there nelly! Is this a common thing for SCOTUS to be doing?
(From the link Milossarian posted)
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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”.
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.