Judge: Prop 8's donors must be identified

[FlamingMoe]

Prop. 8 campaign can't hide donors' names

Proposition 8 proponents' complaint that a California campaign-finance disclosure law has led to harassment of same-sex marriage opponents failed to sway a federal judge, who refused Thursday to throw out the law or shield donors' names.

I think this is quite ridiculous. Concomitant with the freedom to speak is the freedom to remain anonymous when you do, for the very reasons this lawsuit was filed in the first place: the possibility (and in the case of Prop 8 the very real risk) of harm coming to you or your livelihood. If you wish to make a point on a political matter, why should you be compelled to make your viewpoints publicly attributable to you, particularly when there's a significant portion of the population who won't think too kindly of you?

 

[Darat]

I would say that concomitant with the freedom to speak is the acceptance of personal responsibility for what you say.

That aside in this instance I don't see what it has to to do with a freedom of speech issue, this is about transparency in the political process.

 

[FlamingMoe]

I would say that concomitant with the freedom to speak is the acceptance of personal responsibility for what you say.

How is "accepting personal responsibility" the same thing as "exposing yourself to harm"? Easy answer: it's not. Why do you think a person should be forced to expose themselves to public scorn and possible retribution for expressing a personal opinion? One would think that anonymous speech is essential to open debate, particularly on contentious issues where personal safety may become jeopardized?

Interesting to note: both the Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist Papers would not have been permissible under California law, as they were written anonymously.

That aside in this instance I don't see what it has to to do with a freedom of speech issue, this is about transparency in the political process.

They are speaking about the issue. Ergo, it involves the freedom of speech.

 

[Darat]

How is "accepting personal responsibility" the same thing as "exposing yourself to harm"? Easy answer: it's not. Why do you think a person should be forced to expose themselves to public scorn and possible retribution for expressing a personal opinion? One would think that anonymous speech is essential to open debate, particularly on contentious issues where personal safety may become jeopardized?

...snip...

All well and good however isn't this derailing your own thread? This issue is not a matter of freedom of speech and any right or expectation to be anonymous in regards to this. The issue is whether the funding of a political campaign should be anonymous or not. It seems quite clear that the law in regards to contributions of over $100 has been in place for sometime. Why would you only after the campaign has been run want the law retrospectively changed?

 

[fishbob]

Why would you only after the campaign has been run want the law retrospectively changed?

Hmmmm - why indeed?
Most likely because the chicken$#!+s don't want to publicly acknowledge their responsibility for depriving a group of citizens equal rights. Or don't want to be publicly identified as &^#*&%@ bigots.

And Moe: Standing up and saying what you think is expressing your personal opinion.
Funding a campaign so that public opinion can be used to enforce your personal opinion is not the same thing at all.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

The Mormon church has already suffered two terrorist attacks as a result of the fallout from prop 8.

Exposing ones self to violent assault should never be considered "part of the cost of doing business" when one excercises their natural rights under the law.

 

[Puppycow]

Prop. 8 campaign can't hide donors' names


I think this is quite ridiculous. Concomitant with the freedom to speak is the freedom to remain anonymous when you do, for the very reasons this lawsuit was filed in the first place: the possibility (and in the case of Prop 8 the very real risk) of harm coming to you or your livelihood. If you wish to make a point on a political matter, why should you be compelled to make your viewpoints publicly attributable to you, particularly when there's a significant portion of the population who won't think too kindly of you?

So you want activist judges to overrule the will of the people?

 

[PhantomWolf]

Hmmmm - why indeed?
Most likely because the chicken$#!+s don't want to publicly acknowledge their responsibility for depriving a group of citizens equal rights. Or don't want to be publicly identified as &^#*&%@ bigots.

And Moe: Standing up and saying what you think is expressing your personal opinion.
Funding a campaign so that public opinion can be used to enforce your personal opinion is not the same thing at all.

It could never be becauise they don't want their homes being fire bombed by those that are equally bigoted, I mean totally liberal as long as you hold the same view as them, on the other side.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

It could never be becauise they don't want their homes being fire bombed by those that are equally bigoted,

Or thier places of worship targeted with weapons of mass destruction.

 

[jj]

Yeah, I've heard that old tune about "I have the right to speak but not the responsibility to be responsible for it" from all sorts of directions.

And we see what results on any fully anonymous, unmoderated internet board. ***spew***

 

[Puppycow]

http://www.eightmaps.com/

 

[Darat]

It's an example of changing times.

That type of action (the map) used to be limited to well financed, well organised groups which traditionally has meant the police, government departments, trade unions and so on. What we are seeing is that the same abilities that had traditionally been concentrated in very few hands now being accessible to many, many people.

 

[TragicMonkey]

BS. They aren't worried about being violently attacked. They're worried that their businesses will face boycotts and lose money. Remember Anita Bryant and Florida orange juice? That was what, forty years ago....these days an anti-homophobe boycott would cause a lot more damage.

It's all about the money. That filthy, dirty, sinful gay money. So they can drive a Lexus to church to hear about how Jesus hated fags, and reassure themselves that it's okay to hate those who are different than they are.

 

[PhantomWolf]

BS. They aren't worried about being violently attacked. They're worried that their businesses will face boycotts and lose money. Remember Anita Bryant and Florida orange juice? That was what, forty years ago....these days an anti-homophobe boycott would cause a lot more damage.

It's all about the money. That filthy, dirty, sinful gay money. So they can drive a Lexus to church to hear about how Jesus hated fags, and reassure themselves that it's okay to hate those who are different than they are.

Yes because it's so liberal and tolerant to drive people out of business, destroy careers and ruin the lives of those that disagree with you.

 

[daredelvis]

http://www.eightmaps.com/

Thanks for that. Passed it on to my family that still lives in CA, so they can see if they live near any bigoted ******** that they may want to avoid.

Daredelvis

 

[BPSCG]

It appears that blacks were the racial demographic that most strongly favored proposition 8.

I await the death threats and mass boycotts directed at California's black-owned businesses.

 

[Upchurch]

http://www.eightmaps.com/

Or thier places of worship targeted with weapons of mass destruction.

Yes, those are awful and should be addressed, but it is an entirely different from this issue:

Prop. 8 campaign can't hide donors' names

I think this is quite ridiculous. Concomitant with the freedom to speak is the freedom to remain anonymous when you do

That's baloney on numerous different levels. No where in the first amendment does it say that you are free from the negative repercussions of what you say (barring that those repercussions don't break other laws like threatening someone's life) not does it guarantee or even imply that you should remain anonymous.

If you wish to make a point on a political matter, why should you be compelled to make your viewpoints publicly attributable to you

If you donate money to a political organization and sign your name on it, what expectation of anonymity could you possibly have? Especially, if state law (as I understand it) dictates that those names will be made public?

particularly when there's a significant portion of the population who won't think too kindly of you?

You are guaranteed the right to say unpopular things. You are not guaranteed the right to be popular.

 

[drkitten]

Yes because it's so liberal and tolerant to drive people out of business, destroy careers and ruin the lives of those that disagree with you.

No, instead I should be compelled at gunpoint to give my business to the people I disagree with. That's so respectful of the free market.

 

[Magyar]

Yes because it's so liberal and tolerant to drive people out of business, destroy careers and ruin the lives of those that disagree with you.

HMM, I thought it was actually quit CONSERVATIVE, I do believe that they even have a name for it. Free something or other - gees I wonder what it could be?

It seems to me that the common theme for those defending these P*&%$s is that

their names should not be released because they'll be attacked/threatened etc.

BUT there are laws and protections against such actions already.

Further, this analogy is something like.

Maddof is a jewish banker, ergo jews are all part of a banking consiracy to rule the world.


The issue IS that if the morom church can finance a political campaign to push their agenda without revealing themselves than SC$ should be able to puch their stuff in the workplace!?

 

[PhantomWolf]

Bigot: One who is an intolerant believer of a political theory.

Yup, great to see that this doesn't apply to several of the posters above.