Judge: Prop 8's donors must be identified

[pgwenthold]

Not a legal limit, but a good taste limit, perhaps. The only reason to map out their addresses is to be able to go there. I don't think there is any reason to harass these people, but then I don't consider boycotting their businesses harassment. At the most, I could see writing these people individually a letter expressing my opinion.

But presumably, the potential risks associated with making the names public would have been weighed when the law was created, wouldn't it? That should have been part of the debate when the law was proposed.

If the law doesn't make an exception for the effects of public disclosure, then the court can't add one, can it? If the law says, "The names of those who donate $100 or more must be made public," the court can't add a "unless it causes undue burden to their privacy" clause, can it? If it causes an undue burden to privacy, then the argument has to be that the law should be thrown out, not that it doesn't apply to them. The law as I said it above (which may or may not reflect the actual law) doesn't make an allowance for a waiver.

 

[pgwenthold]

I largely agree here. Yes, the law provides for disclosure, and yes the federal Constitution has been interpreted to mean that anonymous donations are not protected (see McConnel et al v. FEC). But that's the proposition I am against.

Should it be illegal for me to stand on a street corner wearing a ski mask and a sandwich sign advocating a particular political position? Should I have to identify myself to passersby who inquire as to my identity? If someone helped me pay for the plywood, should I have to identify them also? There are issues that engender passionate feelings. If I'm compelled to identify myself when I advocate for or against one of these positions, I am putting myself at risk for reprisal. Why should I have to choose between personal safety and the freedom to speak?

What kind of reprisal are you talking about? Physical attacks, for example, are already prohibited by law, and that is not compromised when you are listed as giving $100 to a political cause. Is there some legal means by which your opponents can cause you harm?

So what "personal safety" is not being protected?

 

[Upchurch]

But presumably, the potential risks associated with making the names public would have been weighed when the law was created, wouldn't it? That should have been part of the debate when the law was proposed.

Maybe, maybe not. It doesn't really matter what they considered when writing the law. Just because you can publish a map of the locations of people who donate to a particular political organization doesn't mean you should or that it is a good idea.

I'm not talking in terms of what is legal or not. I'm talking in terms of what is a good idea. I'm all for being held responsible for one's actions, but making it that easy for some hot head to potentially hurt someone, even hypocritical homophobes, is not a good idea.

If the law doesn't make an exception for the effects of public disclosure, then the court can't add one, can it? If the law says, "The names of those who donate $100 or more must be made public," the court can't add a "unless it causes undue burden to their privacy" clause, can it? If it causes an undue burden to privacy, then the argument has to be that the law should be thrown out, not that it doesn't apply to them. The law as I said it above (which may or may not reflect the actual law) doesn't make an allowance for a waiver.

No. No. Yes (but I'm not suggesting that they do so). Yes.

 

[martu]

I largely agree here. Yes, the law provides for disclosure, and yes the federal Constitution has been interpreted to mean that anonymous donations are not protected (see McConnel et al v. FEC). But that's the proposition I am against.

Should it be illegal for me to stand on a street corner wearing a ski mask and a sandwich sign advocating a particular political position? Should I have to identify myself to passersby who inquire as to my identity? If someone helped me pay for the plywood, should I have to identify them also? There are issues that engender passionate feelings. If I'm compelled to identify myself when I advocate for or against one of these positions, I am putting myself at risk for reprisal. Why should I have to choose between personal safety and the freedom to speak?

Who listens to an oddball in a ski mask? How many listen to a preacher?

 

[Darat]

Maybe, maybe not. It doesn't really matter what they considered when writing the law. Just because you can publish a map of the locations of people who donate to a particular political organization doesn't mean you should or that it is a good idea.

I'm not talking in terms of what is legal or not. I'm talking in terms of what is a good idea. I'm all for being held responsible for one's actions, but making it that easy for some hot head to potentially hurt someone, even hypocritical homophobes, is not a good idea.

...snip...

But as I said earlier the ability to do this has existed for a long time however it used to be limited to a few groups which had the quite significant resources that were required to create such a map. (I remember receiving similar maps when I was politically active in the 80s and early 90s - this was so that you could target your on-foot campaigning.) All that has changed is that it is now much easier for people to access and create such maps. It's pretty much always been part of the political process.

 

[fishbob]

I support making large donations public. If someone donates a million dollars for or against a state proposition, I believe the public has a right to know. I also believe that it's not in the public interest to publish lists of individuals making small donations, like $100.

So yes, there's a threshold between a hundred and a million dollars that crosses the line between an individual's right to privacy and the public's right to know. I'm not going to quote an exact figure here, but I'd say there's a balance between encouraging people with more modest means to participate in our democracy and allowing a small minority with more resources to control the entire process.

Got it.
Its OK to secretly pay a little to influence public policy but not OK to secretly pay a lot to influence public policy.

 

[ravdin]

Got it.
Its OK to secretly pay a little to influence public policy but not OK to secretly pay a lot to influence public policy.

Yes. It's also OK to cast a secret ballot in a free and fair election, which will have a direct impact on public policy.

 

[KingMerv00]

http://www.eightmaps.com/

Holy crap! I live 15 minutes from the President of the #&$!%ing Templeton Foundation. He donated $450,000. That's two and a half times what the Mormon Church donated.

Scumbag.

Edit: A quick check of the map also tells me he is the biggest single contributor. Double scumbag!

 

[fishbob]

Yes. It's also OK to cast a secret ballot in a free and fair election, which will have a direct impact on public policy.

2 points:

1 In an election, everybody gets one vote - with equal influence of the outcome.

In campaign funding, some people contribute a whole lot more than others, and therefore buy disproportionate influence.

2 Campaigning, and therefore campaign contributing, is designed to influence voters. Secret cabals of vote influencers are not consistent with our form of government. Those trying to change the minds of voters need to do so publicly.

 

[Texas]

But as I said earlier the ability to do this has existed for a long time however it used to be limited to a few groups which had the quite significant resources that were required to create such a map. (I remember receiving similar maps when I was politically active in the 80s and early 90s - this was so that you could target your on-foot campaigning.) All that has changed is that it is now much easier for people to access and create such maps. It's pretty much always been part of the political process.

Should abortion doctors or donors to Planned Parenthood be posted on the the Internet with maps to their homes?

 

[PhantomWolf]

Of course it would! That boycott isn't based on anything the store said or did, it's just based on the race of the people who own it.

That's the difference. A boycott based on the actions of the business is not in any way, shape, or form, an act of bigotry.

this is what I get for posting at 5:30 am when I have the flu. I missed out a word. It was supposed to say "employed only blacks" which of course would be an action.

There is nothing liberal or conservative about this.

Even the utterly vile White Supremacists (my opinion) stand up and publicly state their opinions. These Chicken$#!+s paid to have somebody else front their opinions for them - apparently to avoid the consequences of their bigotry.

And my point is that attacking people personally because you disagree with their views is a form of bigotry, even if you think they are wrong. The simple thing is that people should be able to express political opinion and even fund that opinion without being attacked for those beliefs by those that disagree. If you disagree with the opinion, attack the opinions, not the person.

It was. I don't see any reason why the protest should stop, however.

The protest can continue without attacking the other side personally, targeting them financally and singling them out. That is not protest, it's harrasment and totally undemocratic. Think about it a little and see how you would feel if the boot was on the other foot. Had Prop 8 failed and those that had been supporting it behaved in the same way those opposing it have since the vote, how would you feel towards them? This is what I am trying to get through, just because you might feel you have the morale high ground doesn't give you the right to act in an uncivilised manner. Two wrongs don't make a right.

That's right. But just because a position is popular doesn't make it moral or correct.

And as I ponted out above, thinking you have the moral high ground doesn't excuse your actions when you behave poorly. The popular decision may have been a poor one, but that in no way excuses that attacks on those that supported it.

Or are you going to suggest now that the police are "intolerant" of the criminals they arrest? Is this another attempt to misuse "tolerance" as a tu quoque fallacy?

You have already tried this strawman once, and it failed then too. Criminals break the law of society, society gives police licences to stop them from doing so. Nothing those supporting Prop 8 did was illegal, their beliefs and opinions are not illegal. As such to personally attack them and organise against them purely for their beliefs is intolerance and bigotry in its own right.

So calling people bigots is not a personal attack, and calling someone a loon is now?

Ypou are quite welcome to point out anywhere I have called a specific poster a bigot.

It is their decision. Just like someone can choose not to go anywere that employs blacks. Mexicans would be tough to find a resturant that didn't employ them in some fashion though.

The freedom of choice of where to spend money is different from a boycott, though many seem to try and use them interchangably. A boycott is an organised denial of trade as a form of punishment. Organising punishment to someone that fails to uphold tha same political beliefs as you is bigotry whether you like it or not. The difference here is that between simply not going there yourself, and telling and organising others to try and finacially harm someone.

You also seem to be differentiating bigots in a strange fashion. Are you claiming that this is bigotry but it is acceptable bigotry now?

I don't think that any form of bigotry is acceptable be it from a moral stance I agree with, or one I don't. Morality in today's is very poorly defined, it all depends on a person's own point of view as to what is moral and what is not. This makes morality purely a matter of opinion. What right do I have to say that my opinion on a matter is more valid or of greater value that any other person's? I may believe that my opinion and the actions I take based on that opinion are the correct one, but the odds are that the people that disagree with me also believe that theirs is the correct view. That means that I have to remember that even when I find their opinions abhorant to me, I still have to respect their opinions, and as long as their actions don't break the law, I have to respect their right to take those actions. As soon as I start refuse to allow them to have different opinions to myself, attempt to force them to adher to my beliefs, and make follow only actions acceptable to me, I have crossed the line into intolerance myself, I have become obstinant in the belief that I am right and they are wrong, and in that crossed from tolerance to bigotry.

He lost his job for what he said. Here people might loose some business for the political possitions that they support.

No he lost his job because he is alleged to have broken the law and was caught.

Please give examples of what sorts of businesses it is acceptable to boycott and which it is immoral to boycott.

I don't think that it is morally acceptable to boycott any private business for any reason. If you do not want to asscoiate with a business, or a person, as an individual, that is your right and choice, but to activity organise others in an attempt to shutdown a business' trade becauce they hold a different polictical view and exercise their right to that view, is nothing short of economic terrorism. You do not have the right to attempt to financally ruin someone for disagreeing with your political view, this is totally undemocratic, and at the extremes it becomes like politics in Zimbawe.

So we have to prevent people from expressing their free speech rights in such ways then. To promote free speech.

Economic boycotts are not free speech, they are a form of vigilantism.

If you are arranging a boycott of a business because you disagree with a political donation it has made that is not intolerance. It would only be intolerance and therefore could only be bigotry if you were trying to say that the business did not have the right to make such a donation because you disagree with the political campaign they supported.

That's a hideously thin line you are drawing there Darat. If an orgainsed Boycott isn't an attempt to tell the business that it doesn't have have the right to express a political view without being bankrupted, what is it? It's also telling others that if they dare hold a polictical view that is deemed to be unacceptable, they will be next. Simply not using a business that has policies you disagree with is not being bigoted, but activity trying to cause finacial harm to them because they have different political views is, and boycotts attempt to do just that.

I have seen no one making the claim that a business (or a person) does not have the right to make whatever decision they want, only that if a business or person makes a decision that others also have the right to act in any lawful manner to oppose the decision the person or business made.

There is a difference between attacking a decision and attacking the business or the owners finacially. When the attack goes from being against the arguments to actively attempting to force the opponents to change their minds or face finacial ruin, that is unacceptable and showing total intolerance.

To say that someone is being bigoted because they are boycotting a business in this way is of course an attempt to influence the political process in exactly the same way that someone might arrange a boycott. Therefore if that is bigotry than any expression of any political view becomes bigotry... Rather a silly and quite uncommon definition of bigotry.

This really makes no sense. Attempting to force people to follow your opinion and politics with the threat of being finacially ruined if they dare step out of line and support a political view you disagree with, is totally different to expressing a political view point and arguing or supporting that view. The difference is night and day. Arguing for why your should have supported McCain is not the same as threatening to get you fired, backrupt you, and destroy your business because you voted for Obama. As soon as the attacks go personal and go after the person, not the argument, intolerance and hence bigotry is the result.

PW. Are you creationist? I ask because reading through your post you seem to be suffering from the same delusion that most creationists are infected with - that all ideas have equal merritt.

Politics has nothing to do with science, try not to get them confused. We're not talking scientific ideas, we're talking political opinions. Ideas in the realm of science are either right or wrong, the Universe has set laws and don't care if you want to believe that dropping a hammer a metre above your bare foot won't result in pain or not. When it comes to politics, the Universe doesn't care one way or the other. In this case all opinions are equal because there is no absolute truth and law that they must adher to, they are rather just that, opinions. Now as people we might feel that some opinions are closer to our own moral beliefs than others, but that doesn't invalidate those that aren't it just means that we don't accept them as correct. Over time some opinions gain more popularity or respect, and can become law at which point you are expected to follow them even if you disagree, but that still doesn't mean that those that disagree are wrong, and again over time opinions can change and laws get rewriten because of opinions changing.

NEWS FLASH - this is NOT true!

News Flash, when dealing with political opinion it is true. If one pilotical opinion was more valid than another we'd never see a change of parties, law or politics, it'd be static because the most valid opinion would hold sway.

In the prop 8 case - the moron (er Mormon) church funneled lots of money (and I think that bringing this to light is the push behind revealing the names) to pass a bill that strips a segment of a population of their civil rights because a majik bean told them that those people were bad.

Yet interestingly others have pointed out that there were people that put far more money into the campaign. I'd also point out that those opposed to Prop 8 also had plently of opportunity to raise money and donate to their cause and fight the battle prior to the vote. One of the reasons they failed was their own tactics were bigoted in their execution. Rather than putting forward the reasons for Prop 8 to be voted down, they spend their time attacking the supporters of it. This hasn't changed since the vote. If the best you can do to support your side is to attack those that disagree, you really don't have a serious case, and need to start taking a long look at yourself.

I want to note here, I'm not trying to support one side over the other here. I have my own opinions on the matter but since I'm not involved in the whole thing there is no point to expressing them one way or the other. What I am trying to do is to point out that just because one side in the issue behaved badly is not an excuse for the other side to behave equally badly, and then look all shocked when called on it. Tolerance is a two way street, if I expect people to be tolerant of me and my lifestyle, I have to be tolerent of them and theirs, in fact if I want people to be tolerant of me, I have to be tolerant of them even when they AREN'T being tolerant of me. If I'm not, then how can I truely say I am morally better?

Based on your posts you fail to understand that holding people who abuse, dissrespect and strip others of their rights based on irrational and incoherent babblings of magic books accountable for their actions is NOT equivalant to their behavior.

And based on your posts you fail to understand that not everyone believes what you do, that certain things are a right, or that their books are irrational and incoherent babblings. See this is the point, because you believe that you are right you think they are wrong and their views is thus invalid. The problem is that they think you are wrong and thus that your point of view is invalid. The truth is that both of you only have an opinion and neither view is invalid. If we want to truely be a civilised society then we have to understand this and determine the best way to get both groups to compromise. Calling each other names and attacking each other does not achieve this.

PS NO ONE is advocating violence against these people and I note that you still ahven't posted any proof of your molitof coctails through childrens windows.

I have never suggested that anyone is advocating physical violence, and nor have I said that anyone has thrown a molitof cocktail through a child's window. What I have said it that publishing the names and making maps showing people where to go opens them up to this sort of things. Frankly I really hope that it doesn't happen, I'd like to believe that humans are better than that, but the reality is that when people get angry they do stupid things which they may later regret. We have already seen cases of vandalism and antrax scares, all it takes is one of two extremists who decide to go a few steps further and who knows the result. Is putting people in a position where they could be physically harmed because of their political beliefs a good one? The law might say it's illegal to physically attack, but as I pointed out, the law doesn't actually stop anyone that choices to ignore it.

Secondly, while people haven't been advocating physical damage, they have been advocating finacial damage. Honestly, is their really any difference in beating someone up because of their political beliefs, and bankrupting them because of it? If anything bankrupting is worse, bruises and bones heal in a few days or weeks, finacial ruin can last a lifetime.

So instead those people should and do business with people that apparently hate them, campaigns to deny them basic civil rights, thus giving them money to continue to support bigoted crusades?

Sorry, I'll vote with my wallet as the poular saying go. I wont do business with klan members, neo nazis, homophobes or similar. If that drives them out of business and ruins their career is none of my concerns. Lie in the bade you made and all that...

Again, not saying that individual choice shouldn't apply, I'm talking active campaigns to destroy political opponents. I am sure that you would be vhermently against it if Prop 8 had failed and the supporters of Prop 8 were now organising boycotts against those people that contributed to the anti-8 fund, publishing their names and adresses as Google Maps, calling them names on bulletin boards, and advocating for them to be driven into finacial devastation. Do you really want a democracy that runs this way? Quashing political dessent from either side by those that oppose them by way of finacial attack is not democracy nor tolerance. In short, telling people they have to hold the same view as you or else is a form of bigotry, no ifs, buts, or maybes.

And it is my right in a democracy and free market to not support those I disagree with. Boycotting someones business is not an attack, it is not curtailing their legal and civic rights and they still ahve evry right toexpress their opinion and support and fund any campaing they like...

Just don't expect ME to take MY cash to THEM and thus indirectly funding the very things I am opposed to.

You seem to be failing at knowing what a boycott is. I don't fault you for that because it seems that a lot of people miss it. A Boycott is not you taking your business elsewhere, a boycott is a active attempt to punish by the organised refusal of trade. You refusing to go into McDs because you don't think they should serve fatty food is not a boycott. Organising a group, creating a website encouraging others not to go, ringing up suppliers and making them stop supplying, scaring away customers. That's boycotting, and that is a form of economic terrorism because you are trying to force your will and opinion onto others under threat.

 

[Darat]

Should abortion doctors or donors to Planned Parenthood be posted on the the Internet with maps to their homes?

"Should" is quite a different point to my point, but your example is more evidence to support my point e.g. this has been part of the political process for quite some time.

 

[Texas]

"Should" is quite a different point to my point, but your example is more evidence to support my point e.g. this has been part of the political process for quite some time.

Could you point me to a website that posts maps of donors to planned parenthood and abortion doctors?

 

[Darat]

Could you point me to a website that posts maps of donors to planned parenthood and abortion doctors?

Sorry for the confusion - I didn't think you were posing a hypothetical question, I just assumed you were basing it on something you knew.

 

[quixotecoyote]

You seem to be failing at knowing what a boycott is. I don't fault you for that because it seems that a lot of people miss it. A Boycott is not you taking your business elsewhere, a boycott is a active attempt to punish by the organised refusal of trade. You refusing to go into McDs because you don't think they should serve fatty food is not a boycott. Organising a group, creating a website encouraging others not to go, ringing up suppliers and making them stop supplying, scaring away customers. That's boycotting, and that is a form of economic terrorism because you are trying to force your will and opinion onto others under threat.

Who knew this guy was an economic terrorist?



Such a nasty, bigoted fellow he was.

 

[Texas]

Sorry for the confusion - I didn't think you were posing a hypothetical question, I just assumed you were basing it on something you knew.

No problem. I don't agree with the idea that a person or organisation should be placed on a public target list because of the causes the support or donate money to. There are few hot button topics more prone to violent reactions than Abortion or Homosexual rights and supporters on both sides risk either financial ruin or physical harm for their positions on the subjects. This is very different from campaign contributions to political parties or individual candidates since the emotions are far less intense.

 

[PhantomWolf]

"Should" is quite a different point to my point, but your example is more evidence to support my point e.g. this has been part of the political process for quite some time.

Just because something has been part of the political process for a long time doesn't actually make it right, just like because something has been the law for a long time doesn't make it right. Dirty politics and attacking opponents seems to be engrained in US Politics (and starting to arrive here unfortunately) but this doesn't make it right, just as publishing private details of political opponents in a way that could leave them open to personal attacks against their family, properties, and finaces, is also not right even if it has been neing done for a long time. The fact that with today's technology that information is far easier to deseminate without being able to filter who may have access to it is also a bad thing. At least when it was paper maps you could make sure that anyone that might take things too far was unlikely to get hold of it.

 

[Darat]

Just because something has been part of the political process for a long time doesn't actually make it right, just like because something has been the law for a long time doesn't make it right.

I agree that it doesn't make it right but I think it does apply a brake to a lot of the slippery-slope type arguments some people use to argue why this type of thing shouldn't be allowed.

Dirty politics and attacking opponents seems to be engrained in US Politics (and starting to arrive here unfortunately) but this doesn't make it right, just as publishing private details of political opponents in a way that could leave them open to personal attacks against their family, properties, and finaces, is also not right even if it has been neing done for a long time. The fact that with today's technology that information is far easier to deseminate without being able to filter who may have access to it is also a bad thing. At least when it was paper maps you could make sure that anyone that might take things too far was unlikely to get hold of it.

It would seem that you are arguing that information which by tradition or even direct legislation has been publicly available should no longer be available?

 

[Darat]

No problem. I don't agree with the idea that a person or organisation should be placed on a public target list because of the causes the support or donate money to. T

...snip...

Like I said to PhantomWolf it would seem that you are arguing that information which by tradition or even direct legislation has been publicly available should no longer be available, is that correct?

 

[PhantomWolf]

Who knew this guy was an economic terrorist?

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_102614992929acd51d.jpg[/qimg]

Such a nasty, bigoted fellow he was.

Did you actually bother to read the thread quixotecoyote? The Montgomery Bus Boycott was already brought up and answered. Boycotting the State for unjust laws is totally different to boycotting individuals or private businesses conducting legal activities. Had MLK jr advocated that the those that followed him boycott private businesses or individuals then he would have been an economic terrorist, but he didn't. In fact he advocated that all people should show tolerance to everyone else, regardless of their beliefs, that only through being tolerant towards those that display intolerance can we true progress our society. I'd venture to suggest that Dr King would be mortified by the reaction against those that supported Prop 8, just as much as he would have been mortified by the inclusion of it in the first place.