Wow…. who’d have thought that a newspaper in Boston would ever agree with me on a gay rights issue?
Intimidation On The Web – Boston Herald Editorial
You’d think that people who have in their lives experienced a certain level of discrimination might be just a little sensitive to the feelings of others. But that’s apparently too much to ask of Tom Lang and his spouse Alex Westerhoff, who have launched knowthyneighbor.org.
The aim here is clearly to intimidate. It is also an open invitation to harass those who sign on to the measure. It’s rather like earlier efforts by ardent anti-abortion groups who posted the names of doctors who performed abortions on their Web sites. At least one of those doctors ended up dead.
Lang and Westerhoff are engaging in an ugly, ugly bit of business that can only lose them the support of Massachusetts voters who might otherwise be content to live and let live.
– Bruce (GayPatriot)
Bruce, the Boston Herald makes this case much better than your flaming dramatics. And yes, the Herald is a conservative paper who editorialized against allowing same-sex marriages. But, they still make the rational argument here.
Bruce,
I agree with you on this issue. I certainly think signing a petition for a ballot initiative should be a matter of public record – if you’re going to take a stand, then be prepared to back it up. However, for this information to be carelessly tossed into the wild of the internet, however legal that may be, is at best irresponsible. What will be the reaction of Mr. Lang & Mr. Westerhoff when a screw-ball moonbat shows up on a petitioners door-step to have a little discussion a’la Tony Soprano? I think their actions reflect poorly on other supporters of equal marriage rights.
A more mature, less confrontational way to handle this issue, would be for Mr. Lang & Mr. Westerhoff to let others know how to access the public records and encourage them to get involved in the initiative process.
For now, they just sound like whiney queens.
What will be the reaction of Mr. Lang & Mr. Westerhoff when a screw-ball moonbat shows up on a petitioners door-step to have a little discussion a’la Tony Soprano?
They’ve already given themselves carefully worded “outs” so they can’t be held responsible.
I am in the middle here. I don’t think that this is a good tactict, but it appears legal and that it has been used in Massachusetts before.
This information belongs to the people of Massachusetts, and state law stipulates its broadcast. Its a bitch, but it is how it is. Again, it is similar to FEC regulations that requires that everyone who makes a federal political donation of $200 or more have their information made public and posted online.
That’s how we know Bruce (GayPatriot) gave $4,000 last cycle to George W. Bush, $2,250 to the Republican National Committee and $500 to Rick Santorum. When you give that much, you agree (by checking the box on the contribution form) to make your information public. Its the ame type of agreement you give when signing a petition.
I haven’t given politically, and I haven’t signed any petitions (I did however vote in the ML All Star balloting at several baseball games earlier this season!!!). Now, I will be more aware when approached with petitions by those people in grocery store parking lots.
Perhaps, we should look at changing such election laws — or at least, getting MA to require that a disclaimer be LARGELY PRINTED to warn people of this. That would at least seem a fair compromise.
And it seems this forum would be a perfect place for online pressure to change MA election law. It might be too late for this petition, but it would send a powerful signal. What do you think?
However, for this information to be carelessly tossed into the wild of the internet, however legal that may be, is at best irresponsible.
Then perhaps you should also petition the Attorney General to remove it from the state website as well, because that’s the original “tossed into the wild” source of the information. Whether they post it on their site or link to the Attorney General’s site, the effect is the same.
…again, the law as refuge for the Left. Recall:
Cindy Sheehan has every legal right to picket at Crawford (which, indeed, she did), and associate with any group she chooses (which, indeed, she did).
I don’t think anybody’s advocated (although I suppose it’s possible they may have, and I would disagree with them) that what these guys are doing is, or should be, illegal.
The point is, it’s wrong.
Legal does not necessarily equal right. And if the best argument you have is that it’s legal, it seems you’ve pretty much run out of moral standing in defending these actions.
What this reveals is the tension between the competing interests of transparency in government and individual privacy. At one time, universities made public the names and addresses of their students. That was how the Symbionese Liberation Army obtained Patty Hearst’s address so they could kidnap her. Subsequently, the Legislature passed a law limiting public access to student information. In recent years because of identity theft much information that was freely exchanged such as SSN’s is now subject to confidential treatment.
If there is no clear and compelling reason for signers’ addresses to be made public, perhaps the Massachusetts law should be changed to make them confidential, or signers should be given the opportunity to opt out of having their personal information disclosed.
In the present situation, anyone who finds themselves being harrassed a result of Messrs. Lang and Westerhoff should find themselves a good civil litigation attorney and sue the pants right off them.
$500 to Santorum?
$500 to America’s Foundation – Rick Santorum’s Leadership PAC and slush fund.
But, the point wasn’t about that — I was asking if it might be a good idea to change election law to do away with the state’s disclosure of petition signers. I’m in the middle here, but would be open to suggestions.
Well, I made much the same point as the Boston Herald editorial staff here:
http://gaypatriot.net/2005/09/13/the-gay-lefts-new-low-targeting-american-civilians#comment-3466
Now consider these remarks from a gay activist this Associated Press story today:
“Opponents of gay marriage contend that such a sweeping change in the definition of a core institution like marriage should be left up to voters, not judges or lawmakers.
“But supporters of gay marriage say that something as fundamental as the right to marry should never be left up to voters.
” ‘The basic civil human rights of people should not be taken away by a popular vote,’ Friedes said.”
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/09/14/D8CK3PV07.html
So here is Josh, not exactly a respecter of democratic values.
Is this what we want to become?
Bruce,
I do not disagree with your point, but rather with the way you made it. You stated that they were intending to commit violence. Note that the editorial frames it in a much better way by pointing out it could lead to violence. And questioning if that is the result the website owners want to achieve. Do you get the difference?
And even with the issue of public posting of data, there are some grey areas.
It IS public information. But if instead of posting the addresses of everyone who signed the petition on the web, what if HRC or LCR took those addresses and did a direct-mail campaign explaining our position and urging them to change their decision? What would be wrong with that? Maybe it would or would not be effective, but it would be a start at least.
$500 to America’s Foundation – Rick Santorum’s Leadership PAC and slush fund.
‘nough said. That simple phrase puts so much in perspective.
In one of the articles (can’t remember which one) there was a line that I found vaugely menacing.
“We hope to establish a dialogue with [the petition signers].”
In other words, no matter how often they say that this information is ‘a matter of public record’ they are actively encouraging people to confront the signers. While they have been oh so careful to give themselves a legal out by saying they do not condone violence, their intentions do not appear to be benign.
Legally, of course, such intentions are irrelevent. As they should be. I also don’t think there should be any legal restraint on the posting of this information, though I would hope a decent person might restrain himself.
Also, the authors of this site have failed the ‘put up or shut up’ test by failing to list their own addresses and by not listing the addresses or even the names of their volunteers.
The name, middle initial, last name, city, state, and zip code should be public. Shame has always played an important role in civil rights battles.
When it’s the Boston Globe, I’ll be REALLY impressed. 😉
It’s legal. It should be legal. It’s still wrong.
These petitions aren’t like the things you randomly sign in the street — when you’re signing a petition that has real legal standing, like this one in Mass. or the “Recall Gray Davis” petition a few years back in California, you have to be a registered voter in the state, and you have to identify yourself completely, including address. I’ve been asked to sign such petitons before (for things I wasn’t completely sure about) and where I might have signed an ‘informal’ petition out of politeness, I didn’t want to go publicly on the record with a position on an issue I wasn’t sure about, so I didn’t. This serves an important purpose when you’re talking about amending the state Constitution.
Petitioning the government is about making a public statement — like standing up in a town meeting. It ought to be public.
But, again — I think the guys doing this are wrong, both from a strategic standpoint and a decency standpoint.
Plus they make all gays look like union thugs. Hey, between the pics from Pride Parade, Michael Jackson, and the pedo priests, our community will need some slick Madison Avenue PR execs to change the nation’s impression of gays after KThyN gets done. Let’s applaud some more shoot-thyself-in-the-foot gay activists standing up for our community! Chandler/Reader/DL? Can’t you reign in these politically inept morons? At the very least, get them refocused to work on Hillary’s campaign. They’re setting us back 15 yrs.
But, again — I think the guys doing this are wrong, both from a strategic standpoint and a decency standpoint.
I think this is an important point for you to explain.
What if some other discriminatory legislation was being brought to the table. I’m hard pressed to create an example that won’t rev up the rhetoric, but please try to imagine it.
If the minority group were attempting to fight it, what other suggestions do you propose?
One of the best motivators to change public behavior is through public shame and condemnation. Like Miss Coco Peru, who I watched on Logo TV last night, when she was on a New York City subway one of the other passengers called her faggot. Did she shame-faced try to ignore it? Make an excuse for herself as if she did something wrong? Start to cry and get off at the next platform? Start a letter writing campaign to the residents of New York to help them understand the hurtful affects of name calling?
No! She stood up for herself, took the f***er down a peg or two with some choice words and received the applause of the entire car.
And as far as decency, how can you look yourself in the mirror when you either accept discrimination or don’t face it head-on? These petitioners want to affect public policy that compromises gay men and women’s equal rights for potentially decades or longer to come. You say it’s not decent to fight that?
In the tolerant nation we’ve struggled to grow to, discrimination was never fought and defeated by wimpy tactics. However, that does not advocate violence, just in this case it does not advocate violence. But things will never change by inaction or coddling.
And as far as decency, how can you look yourself in the mirror when you either accept discrimination or don’t face it head-on? These petitioners want to affect public policy that compromises gay men and women’s equal rights for potentially decades or longer to come. You say it’s not decent to fight that?
Problem is, why are you fighting what you last year called pro-gay and gay-supportive?
Let’s see…..the gay left sanctimoniously wants to use public shame and condemnation to change the behavior of voters, but gives millions of dollars to and kisses the butt of Democratic politicians who say exactly the same thing and espouse exactly the same actions.
What you and the rest of the gay left are, Bob, is a bunch of bullies. You like to beat up on and try to publicly shame ordinary citizens who support banning gay marriage, but cringe and spin about how banning gay marriage isn’t antigay and is actually pro-gay and gay-supportive when your Democratic massas pull the leash.
Let’s see you publicly shame and condemn John Kerry for supporting bans on gay marriage, Bob, instead of spinning. Let’s see these so-called “activists” admit that Kerry’s stance last year, which they undoubtedly supported, was wrong.
Let’s get one thing straight ND30. I’m not a Democrat (or a Republican for that matter), so somehow connecting me to Bob Kerry probably won’t stick much.
Actually some of my ideas are FAR beyond the left and some are FAR beyond the right, but most of them fall somewhere in the middle. They may seem “left” because the people I debate on here are so far right.
I think Kerry is wrong in his stance against gay marriage in Massachusetts. For the most part he has pretty fair and decent ideas toward gay people but in this he is wrong.
However, I think the entirety of the Republican party is more wrong for having a platform that is anti-gay. What you and the gay right are, ND30, is a bunch of sycophant patsies willing to sell out your gay brothers and sisters for a scrap off the Republicans banquet table.
I think Kerry is wrong in his stance against gay marriage in Massachusetts. For the most part he has pretty fair and decent ideas toward gay people but in this he is wrong.
Nice try, Bob, but this is what you previously said about people who oppose gay marriage, back when you were berating GayPatriotWest for saying that not everyone who opposed gay marriage was antigay:
Gay marriage is an important, forefront issue to the gay community. Republicans oppose it. How is it not anti-gay? Or is this some semantic issue for you? It’s not anti-gay but pro-family? Either way it’s both uninformed, biased and unfounded.
But now when it comes to Kerry and other Democrats, you flip-flop and contradict your previous arguments, saying that they aren’t antigay even though they oppose gay marriage.
However, I think the entirety of the Republican party is more wrong for having a platform that is anti-gay.
So in other words, you don’t care if Democrats are antigay, as long as their party platform says they aren’t. Pandering words outweigh their attempts to and support of banning gay marriage and stripping gays of rights through state constitutional amendments. Because Bill Clinton spoke at an HRC dinner, it wasn’t antigay of him to sign DOMA. Pathetic.
God, ND30…you are a little, little man with nothing to say except “John Kerry.”
Oh, I have plenty to say, Gregg. I just have yet to receive a suitable answer as to why you fling such hate speech against Republicans who oppose gay marriage, but praise and call “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive” Democrats who do.