391 replies to this topic

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Deluge,

I was responding to this post by Rhelle:

Quote

Besides, its really hard to care about bigots in any positive way.

Vigo,

Quote

So, you're against online sexual offenders databases?

No.  Criminal sentences are public information.  I haven't said I was against the map either.  I said tranparency is, in my view, the most important element of campaign finance law.  That said I believe if people start taking illegal actions against people who donate to these causes (or who are released sex offenders) it is the duty of law enforcement to go after those who take the step beyond boycotts with great vigor.

Edited by Ser Scot A Ellison, 19 January 2009 - 03:42 PM.

[Deluge]

G'Kar, on Jan 19 2009, 15.21, said:

Wait, people are OK with this? :o

With the map? Yes. With boycotts? Yes. With the intimidation and threats? No.

[G'Kar]

Pax Thien Jolie-Pitt, on Jan 19 2009, 15.36, said:

Wait, you're against the disseminating of publicly available information?

When it results in violence, ostracism, and threats....yes. This map just makes it easier for to find where these people are. You might disagree with Prop 8, but people have the absolute right to support this cause without having to fear losing their job or being threatened with violence.

[Ormond]

Deluge, on Jan 19 2009, 14.32, said:

This isn't a map of how people voted, it's a map of people who were active in organizing the measure.

These maps include people who gave as little as $20 to the campaign. I doubt if most people who gave that little see themselves as having been very "active" in organizing the measure.

I don't think very many people who are small donors to any political campaign really understood that this sort of information was going to be readily available on the Internet. I certainly didn't think about that when I donated to the No on 8 campaign, or to Obama, this year. And as someone who lives in Nebraska, I do have some apprehension as to what kinds of harrassment I might receive when someone else puts up the No on 8 donors map. Whether it's a good or bad thing, this really will have a chilling effect on donations to controversial causes on BOTH sides of any issue, once the average small donor realizes just how public his or her donations are.

[The Progressive]

G'Kar, on Jan 19 2009, 12.42, said:

When it results in violence, ostracism, and threats....yes. This map just makes it easier for to find where these people are. You might disagree with Prop 8, but people have the absolute right to support this cause without having to fear losing their job or being threatened with violence.

So you don't think that people should be held accountable (within the confines of the law) for their speech?

[Deluge]

G'Kar, on Jan 19 2009, 15.42, said:

When it results in violence, ostracism, and threats....yes. This map just makes it easier for to find where these people are. You might disagree with Prop 8, but people have the absolute right to support this cause without having to fear losing their job or being threatened with violence.

So punish people if they make threats, or fire someone unjustly. Don't respond by censoring this information.

[Shryke]

Deluge, on Jan 19 2009, 15.32, said:

This isn't a map of how people voted, it's a map of people who were active in organizing the measure.

I'm pointing out that transparency isn't always good.

I look at that map and can't help but think "What if they did it for OPPOSERS of Prop 8?". How would those people feel about being boycotted, harrassed, threatened etc.

[Stego]

Ser Scot A Ellison, on Jan 19 2009, 15.27, said:

Stego,



I agree with you regarding boycotts.  The problem is the people who take the step beyond boycotting.  Threatening, defacing property, and physically attacking people who donated in support of Prop 8 is waaaaay beyond the pale.  The people who made the map have to recognize they are opening the people who made the donations to more than simple boycotts.

I honestly don't have a problem with the defacement of property. If they write "BIGOT" on the window of a business... I don't see the harm in that. Freedom of expression, don't ya know. :D Particularly since it's true. And it's a time-honored form of expression, too.


Threatening violence and doing violence is horrible, of course. Yet at some point it needs to be understood that while most things in life are shades of gray, this is an issue where there are obvious good guys and bad guys. If you could threaten and beat down Klansmen, would you be able to stop yourself?

I am not condoning the violence here, yet I can understand the desire to inflict it.

Name and Shame works. And these people deserve shame.

[Ran]

It's a difficult thing to deal with, and I guess ultimately the public record is more important than privacy. Doesn't mean it can't be misused, though.

[Ken Stone]

Soooo the "appropriate" response, when someone donates money to strip you of your rights, is to say "Fine, I won't buy from you any more"?  Is that seriously the response all of you would give?  I guess I'm the odd duck because I would actually fscking fight for my rights.

Tempra, on Jan 19 2009, 08.14, said:

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

So we already know that going the legal route to address injustice set's your cause back, and now going the vigilante route also set's your cause back.  I'm guessing this is another case where the only way to fight an unjust cause is to sit down and be very, very quiet?

Edited by Ken Stone, 19 January 2009 - 04:06 PM.

[G'Kar]

Pardon my ignorance but why is this information easily accessible anyway? Aren't donations anonymous?

Edited by G'Kar, 19 January 2009 - 03:53 PM.

[Shryke]

G'Kar, on Jan 19 2009, 15.52, said:

Pardon my ignorance but why is this information easily accessible anyway? Aren't donations anonymous?

Financing transparency. It's actually pretty important in alot of things.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Stego,

Stego, on Jan 19 2009, 15.50, said:

I honestly don't have a problem with the defacement of property. If they write "BIGOT" on the window of a business... I don't see the harm in that. Freedom of expression, don't ya know. :D Particularly since it's true. And it's a time-honored form of expression, too.


Threatening violence and doing violence is horrible, of course. Yet at some point it needs to be understood that while most things in life are shades of gray, this is an issue where there are obvious good guys and bad guys. If you could threaten and beat down Klansmen, would you be able to stop yourself?

I am not condoning the violence here, yet I can understand the desire to inflict it.

Name and Shame works. And these people deserve shame.

So, if "Bob" is really upset about the U.S.'s action in Iraq and comes onto the property of someone flying an American flag, tears down the flag, burns it, and spray paints "imperialist" on the front of their house, you're cool with that?

[Ormond]

Stego, on Jan 19 2009, 14.50, said:

I honestly don't have a problem with the defacement of property. If they write "BIGOT" on the window of a business... I don't see the harm in that. Freedom of expression, don't ya know. :D Particularly since it's true. And it's a time-honored form of expression, too.

I'm sorry, Stego, but if someone rights "faggot" or "faggot lover" on my window because I donated to the No on 8 campagin, I'm going to consider that an act of harrassment and a hate crime. I think I should interpret someone writing "Bigot" on the window of someone who donated to Yes on 8 the same way.

Quote

And these people deserve shame.

Which is exactly how many people who are against gay marriage feel about people who support it.

Edited by Ormond, 19 January 2009 - 03:59 PM.

[Deluge]

G'Kar, on Jan 19 2009, 15.52, said:

Pardon my ignorance but why is this information easily accessible anyway? Aren't donations anonymous?

That's part of the reason why this map doesn't particularly bother me. If the information is already available, putting it into an easy to use format isn't exactly a crime.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Rhelle,

thebadlady, on Jan 19 2009, 15.56, said:

You really come up with the most bizarre stuff.  When has that happened and is it even likely? No.  Have gays had that sort of thing done to them? Aye.

It's simply a hypothetical.  If Stego really believes what he's saying he should be okay with the scenario I describe.  In other words what Ormond said.