A decision by a Federal judge in the California Proposition 8 (anti-gay marriage) aftermath is an ominous canary in the coal mine for free speech.
Our democracy depends on transparent, open speech. In the 15 years that I’ve been an active participant in Internet discussion groups, I have always signed my own name, because I believe that the First Amendment is meaningless, if citizens cannot openly express their ideas, without fear of reprisals. Only in totalitarian states must the citizenry resort to anonymous forms of communication.
I know that the vast majority of people who comment on the blogosphere do wish to maintain their anonymity. It’s not my intention in this post to debate whether or not this is good or bad for a democracy. But one of the most important areas of political speech is that of money donated to support candidates or ideas or ballot measures. The question is this: should people be allowed to contribute money anonymously, as they are allowed to state ideas anonymously?
The federal judge in the California Proposition 8 case has just ruled that political donors have no right to privacy.
Basically, what has happened is this. In the November election, California’s Proposition 8, essentially banning same sex marriage, passed by a margin of 52% – 48%. After the election, opponents of Proposition 8 were outraged, and began to target supporters of Proposition 8 with various types of harassment, which ranged from picketing and boycotts of churches and businesses to personal confrontations at the level of individuals, e.g.
In his suit, which is also being argued by the Alliance Defense Fund, a conservative legal group, Mr. Bopp alleges a wide range of acts against supporters, including “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.”
In one instance, a supporter found a flier in his neighborhood calling him a bigot and listing his employer. In another, white powder was sent to a Mormon temple and a facility run by the Knights of Columbus, the Catholic group, which contributed more than $1 million in support of Proposition 8. Other supporters, including the director of the Los Angeles Film Festival, Richard Raddon, have been forced to resign because of their backing of the measure, while some businesses have been boycotted because of Proposition 8.
I am one of the many Californians who voted for Barack Obama but who also voted for Proposition 8. I explained my reasons for doing so (voting for Proposition 8) in a previous Flopping Aces blogpost back in November, 2008:
The issue here is not the merits of Proposition 8, but a chilling new tactic which could be applied broadly, to any political issue at all. This is the concept of compiling computer lists of campaign donors from public records and organizing a targeted campaign of personal and/or economic harassment. This could have a chilling effect on political contributions, which is a constitutionally-protected form of political speech. This threat always existed, but I don’t recall it being utilized in the way it is being utilized against Proposition 8 supporters.
As I write this, I don’t know the answer. I think that transparency in the political arena is very important, which is, once again, the reason I always sign my name to my various political writings. On the other hand, the ability to do so depends upon my fellow citizens respecting the concept of the honest difference of opinion and not targeting me for personal harassment. This is the sort of thing which one reads about in totalitarian regimes, such as in Iran, where the Iranian regime has targeted Nobel laureate Shirin Ebadi.
Although we hopefully needn’t fear government harassment for our political views, the potential for harassment by private political vigilantes is a grave threat to free speech, in my opinion.
Amen. I agree that political contributions should be made openly without fear of personal harrassment from opponents or political spamming from supporters. It’s the misuse of public information that’s the problem, not the fact that the information is public. Very creepy that people are willing to dishonor themselves and discredit their causes in this manner — and the MSM rolls over and snores.
larry, thank you for a well thought out post. i can’t for the life of see why anyone would agree with obama’s politics, but that is their choice to make, that said, i agree with you. there are way to many people/ groups that pull these nasty tricks, and it looks most like the far left libs that do it. i am very vocal in my beliefs, all of my friends know where i stand, as do most of my clients. what i saw this election cycle was truelly chilling, i was told to burn in hell by an obama supporter who had been a client for years. she asked who i was voting for and i told her, i could have taken a page from her own play book and shaved her fucking head, but that would have been going to her level and i am unwilling to go there. needless to say i told her if she felt that way that i was sure she would be finding a new stylist, she didn’t know why i would want her to. i am not going to let some raving lunatic democrat treat me in that manner, actually i won’t let anyone treat me that way.
i guess what i am saying is that those tactics seem to be reserved for the sole use by democrats. i realize that not all are that insane, but really looks that way to me. i can support any candidate i want, as can anyone else, and the minute a person is screamed at about it it shows how socialist things are becoming. i was disgusted by the behavior i haad seen. and the more crazy these people get, the more their cause is lost. nobody wants to hear them through all of the anger.
Larry,
I appreciate your post very much.
I saw the news reports on the Prop 8 ruling and found it to be chilling.
In an ideal world a person should not have to worry about being targeted or victimized due to their political views. Unfortunately, the real world is not that ideal world.
Back before the election, I saw a story about an independent paper on the West Coast that published photographs and addresses of homes where there were McCain/Palin signs in the yards. The paper didn’t explicitly say what they wanted their readers to do with that particular bit of information but the mere publication of the photographs and addresses was a pretty clear message.
I cannot seem to find the link to the stories at the moment. If I come up with them later, I’ll post them.
Freedom comes with great responsibility and in order to remain free we must be responsible even when we disagree with what the other person has to say or what they stand for.
Six years or so ago, a good friend of mine used his real name and discovered, in a very disturbing fashion, why you shouldn’t use your real name on the Internet.
Someone who disagreed with him on a political discussion board much like this one tracked him through the Internet. The person conducted Google searches, etc to gather the info that was needed, and like it or not, there is a boatload of personal, sometimes private information out there that can be used for nefarious purposes.
To make a long story short, my friends’ father-in-law (73 years old) was contacted by phone and harassed. His mother was contacted by phone and harassed. This stalker, through obituaries that were published when my friends’ mother-in-law died, discovered the town that he lived in. Just a minimal amount of further research produced a home address.
Turns out the Internet stalker only lived two hours away. That’s short traveling for someone who is determined to make a point. Needless to say, when the strange car showed up on the street not much was thought of it. I guess it’s easier to put two and two together when looking back.
Things went steadily downhill from there and eventually his home was vandalized. His neighbors’ too. It was eggs at first, then BB guns used on the windows, then paint on the cars.
The people responsible were eventually caught and prosecuted.
I learned a very valuable lesson.
I never use my real name. In fact I have five or six different screen names and disposable e-mail addresses that I use as I surf the Internet making postings. IP addresses are changed randomly, and the associated personalities disappear along with them.
I understand what you are saying about using your real name, and your reasons why, but with the world the way it is you just never know who is watching and what may happen because of that openness.
I found the link to the article that I was referring to above.
This happened in Seattle, WA.
The story was edited and eventually taken down due to the firestorm they experienced. The addresses are now gone but a couple of the photos remain. All of the campaign signs that are included in the pictures are for Republican candidates.
To erase the trail of what they did, many of the links were redirected to “The Drudge Report” which is where the story originally grew legs and began to spread. How cutesy.
Here is a link to a blog which screen capped the original posting before it was redacted. (The blog owner removed the addresses himself. )
Here are some of the photos:
Larry… first and foremost, a stellar and thought provoking contribution as an FA reader post that transcends all party lines. I echo those above who give you kudos for not only the subject, but your own personal transparency.
On the subject generically … I do believe than when you lend financial aid to a cause or politician, it should be disclosed. I do not classify freedom of speech in this same arena. To express a thought or opinion is completely separate from lending financial aid to advance the same.
It’s one thing for me to say to you… yes, Larry, you should bypass the drug regulations in our country and illegally import what drugs you need for your research on cancer. It is yet another for me to *fund* your illegal importation. Get my drift?
So I believe donations should remain an open data base.
If an individual’s donation transparency is utilized to demonize a business or business owner – (atop the legal recourse available for the obvious illegal acts of threats, vandalism, etal) – that very anti-American judgment should be brought to the attention thru the media. It’s not that it should be illegal (except the above mentioned, of course)… it is, in one way, a reaction of the free market.
I disagree with many an actor/actress/thespian. However I always separate their personal opinions, and mine, from what they bring as their talent or product to life. I will go see movies, patronize a restaurant or use a manufacturer’s product… even tho I disagree with their political stance. that’s on record Others, however, choose not to. Freedom of choice, and the free market at work.
This is also true of those that tend to demonize “big oil” while simultaneously using the same product to fuel their cars, or heat their homes, or advance their own personal prosperity… tho they may not realize it.
On the personal transparency… I tend to think that oft times it has to do with how self sustainable one is in the business world, and how solid they are with personal financial solvency to withstand a business boycott. If I may borrow an old Hollywood expression, if I divulged my personal political leanings, it’s quite possible that in my “blue” state, I “may never work in this town again”. It is a sad statement of affairs, but true none the less.
So in the long run, I’m not sure it’s such a conundrum as you may portray…. this co’mingling of free speech and financial donations in your mind. I consider the former (free speech) as a Constitutional right that cannot be infringed and costs nothing to any of us. Even tho that free expression may bring repercussions by those who choose to wield it against me as a punishment in the free market world.
The latter (financial donations)? This is beyond free speech. It is an act that can – when the amounts are significant enough – affect the absolute corruption of government in our country, and transcend our laws.
I once went out to canvass for an election petition to place a name on the ballot.
It was one of the most eye opening experiences of my political life.
One experience from that was that of a businessman, or should I say former businessman, who was only willing to sign my petition because he had retired from his business.
The fear of alienating any possible customer or customers was enough to have this gentlemen withdraw from the public political stage, leaving him only free to use a secret ballot on Election Day. Once retired, he now felt a re-franchisement of his 1st Amendment rights.
As a somewhat related aside, I just came across a new search engine which makes one’s personal privacy a quaint thing of the past.
http://www.pipl.com
Of course, the first thing I did was to enter my own name. It went well beyond Google, with respect to pulling up things about my private life.
As an example, it listed a tax lien against me, filed by the County of Los Angeles. So I’m a tax cheat, just like Tom Daschle, Tim Geithner, and all my other fellow Democrats, right?
Well, in my case, no, not at all, not guilty.
Seems that for many years, I owned a sailboat, which I berthed at the Alamitos Bay Marina, in Long Beach. In California, boats and planes are taxed at the same rate at houses, 1% of the purchase price, which, in the case of boats and planes, may be adjusted downward, as their value decrease, rather than increases, with time.
I’d originally purchased the boat, in the late 70s, for $30,000. By the early 00s’, the assessed valuation had fallen to about $12,500, meaning my tax, owing to Los Angeles County, was $125 per year.
Several years ago, I sold the boat in December, through a yacht broker, and the responsibility for the next year’s tax payment went to the person who purchased it from me, whom I never met. In any event, there was a snafu. I (appropriately) didn’t receive a tax bill for the following year and the new boat owner never paid the tax. Unbeknownst to me, LA County filed a tax lien against my house in Orange County. When I went to re-finance the house, the lender informed me that I couldn’t receive the loan without having the tax lien removed. Through going to the LA County tax offices and having the yacht broker fax purchase documents to the tax office, I was able to have the tax lien removed, without having to pay anything. In fact, LA County subsequently mailed me a check for more than $125, because of a past inadvertent double payment. While I was still in their office, the sent out notifications to all the credit agencies that the lien had been an error on their part. So I thought my record was free and clear.
And today I find that anyone who enters my name on the above search engine will believe that I am a tax cheat.
Sigh.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
P.S. In spite of the fact that I have signed my name to more than 20, 000 internet posts in the past 15 years and that both my home and business phones have always been listed, along with my home address, I don’t recall receiving a single nasty phone call or letter and certainly not having anyone crazy ringing my doorbell or slashing my tires or throwing eggs at my business or anything like that. One thing that being “vulnerable” does for me is that it reminds me not to get so lathered up in online arguments that I start saying things that I shouldn’t, such as calling people names or things like that. It’s regrettable that people have to feel vulnerable to personal reprisals, just for exercising First Amendment rights.
I can completely empathize with your concerns, Larry, and the experiences related in Luva, Aye, and Neo’s posts. I made a conscious decision to become involved in politics in my community years ago despite owning and operating a family business that depends on a wide demographic of customers in order to stay solvent. When I declared myself a candidate for local office as a Republican (Democrats outnumbered Republicans locally 2 to 1 back then) I immediately noticed the disappearance of some long time customers. When I would see them around town I quizzed some of them about where they had been, saying that I missed seeing them in the store. Some were honest enough to tell me that they wouldn’t spend their money in a Republican owned business.
I learned a lot about my community during that campaign for a partisan office that I would never believed beforehand. It is a heavily unionized community, and I was exposed to the blind allegiance that many of those union members had to their leaders and the Democratic party. I never received any direct personal attacks, but the undercurrent of political threat was always there. I lost that race, and have never sought a partisan office again. I have redirected my efforts to participation on the non-partisan boards of local improvement districts, fire boards, water boards, business associations, etc.
Things have changed considerably in my community since then. The number of registered Republicans in my county has almost caught up to the number of Democrats, and most of those customers that I lost eventually came back (good service always wins out) but I am much more sensitive to the possibility of negative reactions to my public political statements. As for the internet, I don’t broadcast my real identity everywhere I go, but I don’t hide it either. Anyone with an extra 30 seconds on Google could figure it out. I do, however, keep a wary eye on the world around me, and I wouldn’t live in a place where my second amendment rights weren’t clearly protected.
What I experienced was mild compared to what many business owners and community leaders are facing in California. It is a sad state of affairs when such highly organized groups of fanatics are allowed to retaliate against opposing political factions in such violent ways without any repercussion. Sadly, the only recourse for those targeted may be in the courts, which are stacked with activist judges who would probably condone even the most reprehensible attacks as protected free speech.
Great post, Larry, and now I have to go do 10 more hail internets. You really need to stop being so agreeable, it takes all the fun out of having you around FA.
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
No, not at all.
The difference is that your situation was something that was perpetuated by someone else.
Geithner and Daschle didn’t bother correcting their errors until they were being vetted for office.
I suspect you know that there is a big difference. 🙂
Good post Larry, I’m going to check out that site right now. We have had problems with a person’s financial problems over the years. He shares the same name as my husband, different middle initial, different SS# but his credit issues have at times shown up in our reports when we bought and sold a couple of our homes. One time we got a title for his mobile home in the mail, we also have the same bank.
Our voter registration lists include name, party, address, ph. number and all elections they voted in. We used them to know who *not* to call when we were recruiting workers for the campaign, we also used them for petitions because by not voting in certain elections, it disqualifies a person from signing petitions. But, all the information is there, anyone can get it.
I think contributions for causes and politics should remain public, if anyone suffers repercussions they should take it to the authorities should there be any type of an assault against them, their home or business. Perhaps a restraining order could be filed in some cases. Unfortunately, we will always have people that abuse our system and cause harm to their neighbors who other than having a different opinion could be a friend, shame.
I checked my name, it gives the correct address, ph. numbers and aerial photos of our last three homes. My birthday was wrong on one of them.
Gee, does this mean that Obama has to release his list of Website Campaign Donors?
On the subject generically … I do believe than when you lend financial aid to a cause or politician, it should be disclosed. I do not classify freedom of speech in this same arena. To express a thought or opinion is completely separate from lending financial aid to advance the same.
Would this then mean that you support tax returns being public records?
After all, aren’t taxes supporting and funding the government?
Why should something that is compelled by the government remain a secret, and something that I do voluntarily be public record?
A voluntary campaign contribution is most certainly not the same as “involuntary” tax repercussions mandated by law, gitarcaver. A big stretch by the largest of imaginations.
And just so you know, your tax records are not that “secret”. If you run for office, you are likely to have to disclose them. If you apply for a mortgage, you have to supply two years back. Want to work for Obama? Prepare for a body cavity check.
Other than a “need to know basis”, why should your private tax obligations – based on your income – be made easily available to Joe Blow? What do they have to do with your possible intents during a political campaign?