391 replies to this topic

[sio]

It's public information; Google can do whatever they like with it. If the donors did not want to be identified, then they should have reconsidered donating. Transparency exists for a reason.

[Rhom]

Not cool.  But not illegal.  Transparency exists for a reason, but so does the right of democracy.  The people of California spoke, Prop 8 opponents should respect that and try to rally support to overturn it in a future election.

Strong arm and bullying tactics are frowned upon when the mob does it to witnesses, why are we okay with it in this situation?

[Tempra]

These type of tactics by Prop 8 opponents will only increase the resolve of Prop 8 supporters.  Good job idiots.

[The Iceman of the North]

Quote

It is exactly those arrows that concern supporters of the measure, who say they have been regularly harassed since the election — with threatening e-mail messages and sometimes boycotts of their businesses.

What's wrong (for private persons) to boycott businesses who's owners (financially) supports political measures that you strongly opposes?

Threats are a different matter all together and anyone receiving threatening mails ought to forward them to the police.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Iceman,

There's nothing wrong with boycotts.  It's the other stuff:

Quote

“death threats, acts of domestic terrorism, physical violence, threats of physical violence, vandalism of personal property, harassing phone calls, harassing e-mails, blacklisting and boycotts.”

before "boycotts" that is the real problem.

[Ormond]

The Iceman of the North, on Jan 19 2009, 08.18, said:

What's wrong (for private persons) to boycott businesses who's owners (financially) supports political measures that you strongly opposes?

Threats are a different matter all together and anyone receiving threatening mails ought to forward them to the police.

I'm not sure organized boycotts are effective, but they certainly are an entirely different matter from "threats". However, I do know that if they get around to putting up donors from the Omaha area on their maps, and there is anyone I can identify as a business owner on it, I will probably personally not patronize that business.

The maps so far are very incomplete and selective. They focus mostly on donors living in California. About the only other "small donors" so far on the map are a group who work for Focus on the Family in Colorado Springs. I'm sure there were donors for Prop 8 in every state, just like there were donors against it everywhere. When they put up a map of donors against Prop 8 (which someone surely will) my name and address will be on it.

[Seventh Pup]

I agree that boycotts are completely valid, and should be expected to a degree if you donate to a politically charged measure like prop 8. Also transparency exists for a reason, and it should exist.

But the threats should be forwarded to the police, and the police should take care of them. Those who sent the threats should be dealt with to the full extent of the law, people should feel safe to participate in the democratic process.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

7th Pup,

I've always thought transparency is the most important control on control on campaign finance.  I also agree the people making threats need to get a legal beat down.  That type of response is simply unacceptable.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Rhelle,

thebadlady, on Jan 19 2009, 09.50, said:

heh. Iceman doesn't fail at reading comprehension.

Yes.  

I also wanted to reinforce the other allgations in the hopes of preventing a thread derail regarding the validity of "Boycotts".

Edited by Ser Scot A Ellison, 19 January 2009 - 10:01 AM.

[Aoife]

Boycotts are okay, the rest is not. I think Billy Clyde put it best with respect to the mashup itself: Not cool, but not illegal. Sort of like those that do the same with registered criminals, for example.

As for the mapping itself, it's taking information from here: http://cal-access.ss...mp;session=2007 but it does definitely seem to be missing some. The CA site shows donors in, say, Wasilla, but the eightmaps site does not.


On the other hand, I did have to laugh at this terminated committee in support of the proposition:
BIGOTS AGAINST LIFE, LIBERTY AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS

[Anatole Kuragin]

I don't understand the question, why would anyone be okay with opponents of the proposition physically hurting supporters or their property?

[Aoife]

What question? I don't think anybody has said they are okay with anything other than the boycotts.

[Anatole Kuragin]

Marie-Angélieef, on Jan 19 2009, 09.25, said:

What question? I don't think anybody has said they are okay with anything other than the boycotts.

Ohhh, I misread the thread title....

For some reason I thought she was asking if attacking people was cool/not cool.  Carry on.

[Seventh Pup]

Having read the article I have to admit there is some delicous irony in it.

From the article-
"The cost of transparency cannot be discouragement of people’s participation in the process,” said Mr. Bopp, who has argued several prominent cases challenging campaign-finance laws in California and other states. “The highest value in the First Amendment is speech, and some amorphous idea about transparency cannot be used to subvert those rights.”

The election law in question, the Political Reform Act of 1974, was approved by California voters as Proposition 9, and gay rights advocates say there is rich irony in supporters of Proposition 8 opposing the earlier ballot measure.

“They believe in the will of the people if it’s in tune with what they believe,” said Jennifer C. Pizer, marriage project director with Lambda Legal, the gay rights legal organization, in Los Angeles.

:lol:

[TerraPrime]

Tempra, on Jan 19 2009, 09.14, said:

These type of tactics by Prop 8 opponents will only increase the resolve of Prop 8 supporters.  Good job idiots.

That's right. You tell them what to do, Tempra, you champion of equal rights and combatant in the trenches of equal rights for LBGT people you.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

TP,

TerraPrime, on Jan 19 2009, 14.24, said:

That's right. You tell them what to do, Tempra, you champion of equal rights and combatant in the trenches of equal rights for LBGT people you.

Please tell me you aren't condoning threats, physical violence, and harrassement?  You know I disagree with prop 8 but intimidating people is not the way to bring about justice for LBGT people.

[The Progressive]

Scot,

Please tell me where in his post did TP condoned threats, physical violence and harrassment?

On the database/map .......... very useful information for boycotting purposes.