Political Speech ≠ Outing

I'm certain that I agree with GayPatriot more often than not, but we often diverge on gay marriage.  (Full disclosure: My male partner and I were legally married last month in Massachusetts.)  However, in this case, I think I would disagree with GP on principle, no matter the underlying political issue involved.

GP is lambasting a pair of gay-rights activists who plan to "post on the Internet the name and address of anyone who signs a petition to ban gay marriage and civil unions in Massachusetts."  [Boston Herald link]

However, nowhere in the Herald story (or on the couple's website) do they embrace anything other than making information available so that people can make decisions, such as to which businesses to give their patronage.  In fact, the couple's website is specifically disavowing intimidation tactics:

KnowThyNeighbor.org has come out in full support of the rights of all citizens to sign the petition and outrightly condemns anyone who might consider harming a person or their property in retribution. But [webmaster and the group's co-director Aaron] Toleos clarifies, "Let's be honest about who's really being intimidated here. It's the same-sex couples and their children who have been singled out by the Massachusetts Family Institute to have their rights eliminated who really need to be protected."

As I commented over on GP:

I’m not very keen on the outing campaign, at least in the way it has manifested itself: i.e., impersonating reporters to get information, drumming up harassment of staff, etc. But I’m a little more ambivalent about this one [...] .

When you sign such a petition, there is no right to privacy guaranteed. It is an overtly political statement one chooses to make. (In fact, it seems a bit cowardly to expect that no one should be able to “call you out” on such an act.)

For instance, it is already exceptionally easy to find out about your neighbors’ political contributions, yet I don’t hear a hue and cry over that. And giving money is arguably a much stronger form of political speech than merely signing one’s name to a petition.

So simply posting the names to me seems to be making a political statement in its own right, so long as it doesn’t cross the line of actually advocating physical retribution.

The Blogosphere:

BfT says: "I think it is a good idea for the Secretary of State to create such a database."

Hothouse says: "Now if only someone would do a Google Mashup like that one that helps you find a decent slice of pizza in your area."

A Stitch in Haste says: "There is nothing 'mean-spirited' about de-hooding a Klansman."

Pesky Apostrophe says: "My cautious side thinks that publishing a name and city is good enough, because publishing an address is inviting violence ..."

Downtown Lad says: "Gay people deserve to know the names of those who are not only interfering in their lives, but who are trying to wreck their marriages as well."  Then he dings my new friend, La Shawn, for advocating the ultimate retribution against gays.

And finally, Big Cat Chronicles becomes my new friend by default, i.e., in becoming my enemy's enemy.

Comments

[BfT]

I would argue that this is something that the Secretary of State should post in an online database for all initiatives!

[Roy]

I think it's fabulous that they plan on putting the names on the internet! If they are ashamed to support taking away marriage for gays, then they should not sign the petition!

[North Dallas Thirty]

When do they intend to publish the names and home addresses of themselves and their volunteers so that people may make the decision whether to boycott THEM or not?

What I find amusing is that these same kind of activists get into a snit about the AFA and others advocating boycotts of Disney and Ford, but are quick to push exactly the same thing when they believe it will favor them.

[srcastic]

I agree that it is totally fair for them to post the contact info. When legislators push for a constitutional amendment, the record of their support is known to the public. Massachusetts felt that it was important for the public to know what citizens support such efforts through use of the initiative process, and thus decided to make it public record. That a website enables people to better access a public record, in the name of civil discourse, is entirely appropriate.