You sign a petition to curb gay rights. Should your name be public?

[Cecilie1200]

So, Louissa answered the question. It is a matter of public record. Public records are open for anyone to view who is willing to pay the fee to view it. Case closed.

The law she cited as evidence is the very law that's at issue before the Supreme Court. Case NOT closed.

 

[Immanuel]

I'm in. A member here get's our numbers...verifies...and they we exchange in a phone call...by real name.

what say you?

Point is, however, to make it public so that you have to deal with crazy people like me that will call you at strange hours in the middle of the night and hang up, or paint homosexual slogans on your garage door, or yell at your children when they are in school telling them that their daddy is a homophobe, or having their kids beat the shit out of your kid because you didn't agree with them.

Immie

Nice stories, but that is what christian anti legal abortion protesters do.

If anyone in CA were truly threatened it would be big news.

Plus, when one starts or viocally enters the public square to debate controversial issues...you get pushed back.

Prop. 8 sponsors and mouth pieces would never have made good Patriots. They are cowards...who went public and now don't like the repercussions. They thought everyone agreed with them. Typical populist delusional thinking.

The fact is...there are no legitimate threats that rise to the level needed to shield public records from public view.

Democracy is messy. Just ask abortion providers, gay activists and any other enemy of people like Rush, Hannity and rabid, child raping Catholic Priests.

And who here has been defending anti-abortion protesters in threatening or harassing opponents?

Signing a petition is not vocally entering the public debate on an issue. It is nothing more than signing a petition asking that something be brought to a vote. It doesn't even mean that the person who signs the petition supports the issue.

For instance, I despise commuter transportation. Florida government officials are pushing a new "high speed rail" system that will go from Tampa to Orlando and eventually Miami. It will I am sure do more to interfere with traffic over the next thirty years while they build the damn thing than it will lessen traffic in the hundred years following, but still we are going to get that damned thing shoved down our throats come hell or high water. If presented with a petition for it, I might sign it hoping to block it by turning the vote against it.

What you deem legitimate may not seem legitimate to the family who suddenly has 20 gay activists planted outside his house threatening him and his children because he is a Christian that does not support gay marriage.

Immie

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

It's interesting that you think one "gets to debate" by, apparently, getting in the face of someone who has not requested to debate with you. Who, by all appearances, simply wishes to communicate quietly with his government and representatives thereto.

Has it ever occurred to you to look for debates with people who want to debate you? Oh, wait, I forgot. Leftists avoid debate with opponents actually requesting them like the plague.

No, it's interesting that I went ti knowthyneighbor and there was nothing about harrassing people.

By petitioning the government one starts a public debate. The backers and signers of public petitions become public figures when they enter the publicc arena.

I really do wish you were capable of being as civil as most others have been here.

I have not gone into the face of anyone nor do I advocate others doing so...unless that person has made public appearancesm

To just shout slogans about leftists at me stifles debate.

goodbye

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Rob you know for a fact that I know your name.

I think that should say post #224. I'll check.

Too bad you didn't play along. We could've had a knock down, drag down public fauf fight. LOL

I don't understand the desire for keeping public records under wraps.

The stories of harrassment are mostly exaggerated, bogus and not traced to the public postings.

The names of people who have campaigned in support of marriage equality have been public. Nobidy I've heard of has conplained about people knowing they what they support..

Petitions are public expressions. They are not ballot questions or votes.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

You truly are an imbecille!

None of the posters here who have read the other posts questions whether petitions are public records...because they all know neither side in the case disputes that facty.

Jesus Christ...leave here and troll elsewhere. Let the adults have a conversation without having to listen to your imbecillic whines.

fuck!

Validation is not public posting.

Any member of the public has a right to examine a petition. It is a public record

According to whom? Because I KNOW you don't think we're just going to take your word for it.

 

[uscitizen]

no

your vote is private and a petition is a process in voting. privacy in voting is fundamental.

A petition is not a vote. And how would the petitions be validated if no information could be released.

I could say I have a petition with 4 million signatures calling for the execution of Bush. If it was confidential who could prove me wrong?

 

[Immanuel]

Rob you know for a fact that I know your name.

I think that should say post #224. I'll check.

Too bad you didn't play along. We could've had a knock down, drag down public fauf fight. LOL

I don't understand the desire for keeping public records under wraps.

The stories of harrassment are mostly exaggerated, bogus and not traced to the public postings.

The names of people who have campaigned in support of marriage equality have been public. Nobidy I've heard of has conplained about people knowing they what they support..

Petitions are public expressions. They are not ballot questions or votes.

Are you drinking and not sharing with the rest of us?

nobidy? conplained?

I have not complained because I don't know anyone's name who has been "outed" as being an equality of marriage supporter that did not want their name publicized.

According to an earlier post, by Jillian I believe, it is only recently that they have become public information. If that is the case, I have not confirmed that, then it is a good thing that this law is being reviewed. That is what we have the Supreme Court for, isn't it?

I do believe that this can only lead to violence.

You mentioned the KTN website. I'd like to point something out to you:

KnowThyNeighbor.org: Whosigned.org Refutes Intimidation Charges; Will Post Names of Petition Signers as Planned

While some allege that petition signers will become the targets of organized harassment, Aaron Toleos, co-director of KnowThyNeighbor.org, says, "Such claims are irresponsible, incendiary, and totally untrue. There is no organized plan to confront petition signers. In fact, we have never advocated for this and don't think it's constructive. No one is going to be knocking on random doors. It just doesn't happen."

That is the same argument that Operation Rescue used when they were accused of being responsible for anti-abortion murders.

No "organized" plan out there doesn't mean that one doesn't exist. Nor does it mean that they don't hope that someone out there will do something violent.

I say let the Supreme Court rule on this issue. They can decide whether or not a petitioner can do so anonymously or whether it violates the rights of those who oppose the petitioners. The Supreme Court can review this and decide whether or not there is a serious threat or if there is justification for protecting the rights of the petitioners.

Immie

 

[Immanuel]

no

your vote is private and a petition is a process in voting. privacy in voting is fundamental.

A petition is not a vote. And how would the petitions be validated if no information could be released.

I could say I have a petition with 4 million signatures calling for the execution of Bush. If it was confidential who could prove me wrong?

Nobody questioned the right of the "Supervisor of Elections", Florida's title for the person responsible to verify signatures, to verify the names of the petitioners. The question has been whether or not they could (it seems that according to current law they can) or whether they should.

Immie

 

[Modbert]

Rob you know for a fact that I know your name.

I think that should say post #224. I'll check.

I know, but I figured you figured nobody would take you up on your offer when I already did over a year ago. I just knew ahead of time.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

And how does any of this apply to the discussion on Ref 71 and the withholding of petitioners names?

I never once mentioned this guy until after you brought him up.

The discussion centered around the reason the gay activists wanted to publicize the names of the petitioners. It seems pretty obvious that the only reason is to intimidate those who have already signed the petition. That can only lead to violence which is the reason this is being discussed.

Most people who sign petitions like that do not expect to be drug out into the public square to be flogged for exercising the right to sign a petition.

I think the name of "Madeline" that you were looking for is Madeline Murray O'Hair. She was a lead figure in the atheist movement for a long time. A public figure and a contentious one at that. She put herself in the public light. She was not "outed" to use an over used phrase. And no, she did not deserve to be harassed.

Immie

You keep saying ''can lead to violence'' as if nothing else can lead to violence.

The fact that most people were ignorant of the public nature of petitions is irrelevant. The backers of the petition obviously left that part out during their specious tales of what signing a petition was about.

Before the CA. Prop. 8 petition drive, it was established fact...knowledge ...that gay marriage proponents had web sites up listing the publicly available names of petition signers.

This knowledge was there for years.

I mention the bigoted Asian christian because his is an example the court just ruled on...he was denied the option to withdraw from a case he helped instigate.

Madelaine was indeed harrassed for her public opinions. Went with the territory. Same with signers of public petitions.

You use terms like 'flogging'l and doing so is hyberbolic and inflamatory.

The courts will not grant special cicumstances for the Prop. 8 signers. They shoukd have known what they were getting into. It was not a new thing that their names would appear on public sites

 

[Immanuel]

And how does any of this apply to the discussion on Ref 71 and the withholding of petitioners names?

I never once mentioned this guy until after you brought him up.

The discussion centered around the reason the gay activists wanted to publicize the names of the petitioners. It seems pretty obvious that the only reason is to intimidate those who have already signed the petition. That can only lead to violence which is the reason this is being discussed.

Most people who sign petitions like that do not expect to be drug out into the public square to be flogged for exercising the right to sign a petition.

I think the name of "Madeline" that you were looking for is Madeline Murray O'Hair. She was a lead figure in the atheist movement for a long time. A public figure and a contentious one at that. She put herself in the public light. She was not "outed" to use an over used phrase. And no, she did not deserve to be harassed.

Immie

You keep saying ''can lead to violence'' as if nothing else can lead to violence.

The fact that most people were ignorant of the public nature of petitions is irrelevant. The backers of the petition obviously left that part out during their specious tales of what signing a petition was about.

Before the CA. Prop. 8 petition drive, it was established fact...knowledge ...that gay marriage proponents had web sites up listing the publicly available names of petition signers.

This knowledge was there for years.

I mention the bigoted Asian christian because his is an example the court just ruled on...he was denied the option to withdraw from a case he helped instigate.

Madelaine was indeed harrassed for her public opinions. Went with the territory. Same with signers of public petitions.

You use terms like 'flogging'l and doing so is hyberbolic and inflamatory.

The courts will not grant special cicumstances for the Prop. 8 signers. They shoukd have known what they were getting into. It was not a new thing that their names would appear on public sites

I think we will have to wait and see on that one.

By the way, I knew nothing of the proponents of gay marriage having websites that posted names of petition signers. Since, I would not have signed that petition, I can't say whether or not having that knowledge would have affected my signing it in the first place, but I imagine that there are some who would not have signed it, which tells me that the idea behind the proponents is to influence voting and keeping referendums off the ballot, through the use of intimidation and threats of violence.

Is that the American way?

Immie

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

And who here has been defending anti-abortion protesters in threatening or harassing opponents?

No one. But you cannot ignore the analogous nature of the two issues and the controversy both produced...and the notion that threats are involved in stifling speech, rights, debate.
Sad, but Of course you'd want to run from the analogy.

Signing a petition is not vocally entering the public debate on an issue. It is nothing more than signing a petition asking that something be brought to a vote.

It doesn't even mean that the person who signs the petition supports the issue.

A petition is the ultimate expression of public debate in the public square.
I've signed petitions I didn't agree with, so please no lectures here.
I signed KNOWING full well my signature was public. Signing my signature was tantamount to speech...saying ''I support the right of these folks to publicly petition the government'' knowing full well my ID would be checked...against publicly available voter registration rolls.

 

[uscitizen]

Why would anyone sign a petition they did not agree with?

 

[Barb]

In fact everyone in this thread that is for releasing these names should post their real full names and telephone numbers.



According to you there is nothing to fear, right?

So let's see 'em.

It clearly states in the rules that we are not to do so. Its apples and oranges anyway. A petition signer is advocating, to the govt., a change or action that will effect the community at large. Here? We're pretty much pissing into the abyss. My real name's Barb. Fishing for telephone numbers on the internet is no way to get a date.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I think we will have to wait and see on that one.

By the way, I knew nothing of the proponents of gay marriage having websites that posted names of petition signers. Since, I would not have signed that petition, I can't say whether or not having that knowledge would have affected my signing it in the first place,..

Ignorance is no defense. The Ballot Initiative workers should've have disclosed what they knew. You were duped.

And as far as the public record aspect...ignorance of the law is never a viable defense.

... but I imagine that there are some who would not have signed it, which tells me that the idea behind the proponents is to influence voting and keeping referendums off the ballot, through the use of intimidation and threats of violence.

Influencing ballots and elections is the American way. There is a fine line between intimidation and influence. Too subjective an argument to hold water absent extenuating circumstances.

And your insistence on mentioning violence of the imagined kind is deceitful, deceptive and down right disgusting.

anectdotal evidence is not enough for the courts to weigh on in favor of keeping public records hidden away.

 

[Barb]

Play by the rules and you'll have no problems Shogun. Explain what right(s) has been taken away from gays Dogbert. Two jerks doing what they do best.

The 1,138 federal rights that accompany civil marriage for starters. Want to keep going?

For someone who wants to save liberty, you sure have no problem taking away from others who are different than you.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Dogbert again.

 

[Barb]

Not a single real name?

Color me not surprised.

All the brave and courageous posters fear posting THEIR names while simultaneously calling OTHERS cowards for not wanting their names posted on the internet.

True hypocrisy at it's finest.

What's yours?

Do you also agree that lobbyists should be able to lobby the government privately? In other words, not use their names and not disclose their affiliations.

The Queen of deflection speaks.

We aren't talking about lobbyists Ravi...what we are talking about is citizens.

Feel free to start a lobbyist thread if you wish to discuss lobbyist.

I we tell you that I'm not going to post my real name for the exact same reason all of you "brave" poster won't post yours.

Because there are some bat shit crazy people out there that none of us want showing up on our front doors wearing a hockey mask and a tutu, weilding a double bit ax.


And anything I'm not willing to do myself...I certainly not willing to force on someone else against their will.



And that is why every one of you is a hypocrite...calling. Others coward for resisting what not one of you is willing to do.


Enough said.

Thread Closed.

Corporations Are People, Too and so are their paid guns.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cq9Vu4-sj5Q[/ame]

 

[ihopehefails]

How should the USSC vote, and why?

As much as I hate this I actually think that signatures might be a public record which can be accessed freely but knowing that the people who want to access them are doing it for nafarious reasons they should be blocked from doing so.

 

[potter 58]

If all hope fails, he runs like the little pus, he is, go figure


opps no balls too

 

[Ravi]

We aren't talking about lobbyists Ravi...what we are talking about is citizens.

Lobbyists are citizens and what they do is exactly what petitioners do...try to influence the government to kowtow to their special interests.