THE NEW BLACKLIST

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

It's fucking creepy as hell that someone can just look up your charitable or political contributions and then harass you or try to damage your career. It's both creepy and frightening that a paper can publish a list of names and HOME ADDRESSES of people who donated to a particular cause, especially with the full knowledge that most of their readership is vehemently opposed to that cause and the people who supported it. I mean, fuck, that's just not right. It's not right when the right-wing does it to the left, and it's still not right when the left-wing does it to the right. It's some unethical bullshit, is what it is.

Who fucking cares whether this woman understands the underlying motivations about her beliefs? I may not agree with her at all, but I don't think that or her self-analysis are relevant.

Except the paper didn't do it.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/03/13/BA0R16EIMB.DTL&tsp=1

The newspaper did not print her home address or the addresses of other donors.

Mullarkey, an artist, contributed $1,000 to the Prop. 8 cause. But her donation to a statewide initiative was public information, available on the Web site of the California secretary of state.

The Prop. 8 donor database, which was provided to newspapers by the Associated Press, didn't include Prop. 8 supporters alone, as Mullarkey strongly suggested.

It was weighted 2-1 in the other direction, including 96,000 records of donors who were against Prop. 8 and 46,000 in favor of it.

So it only printed their names and states of residence?

That's better. Marginally. I still think it's pretty fucking alarming. Like I said, harassment of that nature isn't OK when the right does it, and it's still not OK when the left does it.

Political donations are always a matter of public record, for reasons which are pretty obvious, when you think about it from a corruption POV.

Yeah, but I looked it up and SF Chronicle published a link to a map with prop 8 donor addresses. Yeah, they didn't publish the addresses themselves, just the link. What's alarming is that people whose social/political views I happen to agree with in most areas think that THIS IS ACCEPTABLE, for the sole reason that this woman's social/political views happen to be opposing theirs. I would like to see how these same people would feel if a right-wing paper published a link to the addresses of people who supported a controversial, winning, gay-rights or abortion-rights bill. That kind of thing has happened in Oregon, and it led to the murders of several midwives.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Yeah, but I looked it up and SF Chronicle published a link to a map with prop 8 donor addresses. Yeah, they didn't publish the addresses themselves, just the link. What's alarming is that people whose social/political views I happen to agree with in most areas think that THIS IS ACCEPTABLE, for the sole reason that this woman's social/political views happen to be opposing. I would like to see how these same people would feel if a right-wing paper published a link to the addresses of people who supported a controversial, winning, gay-rights or abortion-rights bill. That kind of thing has happened in Oregon, and it led to the murders of several midwives.

Strictly speaking, it's perfectly legal (the information is public record).  Kosher?  No, not really.

That being said, I rather approve of the poop rain she has received via email...so long as it remains as stated by the petulant author:  Epithets and ad hominems.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Yeah, but I looked it up and SF Chronicle published a link to a map with prop 8 donor addresses. Yeah, they didn't publish the addresses themselves, just the link. What's alarming is that people whose social/political views I happen to agree with in most areas think that THIS IS ACCEPTABLE, for the sole reason that this woman's social/political views happen to be opposing. I would like to see how these same people would feel if a right-wing paper published a link to the addresses of people who supported a controversial, winning, gay-rights or abortion-rights bill. That kind of thing has happened in Oregon, and it led to the murders of several midwives.

Strictly speaking, it's perfectly legal (the information is public record).  Kosher?  No, not really.

That being said, I rather approve of the poop rain she has received via email...so long as it remains as stated by the petulant author:  Epithets and ad hominems.

Legal? Yeah. That's what makes it scary. Scarier still? The  people whose ideologies I agree with who think this is a perfectly acceptable tactic as long as it's directed at people they do not agree with.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Yeah, but I looked it up and SF Chronicle published a link to a map with prop 8 donor addresses. Yeah, they didn't publish the addresses themselves, just the link. What's alarming is that people whose social/political views I happen to agree with in most areas think that THIS IS ACCEPTABLE, for the sole reason that this woman's social/political views happen to be opposing. I would like to see how these same people would feel if a right-wing paper published a link to the addresses of people who supported a controversial, winning, gay-rights or abortion-rights bill. That kind of thing has happened in Oregon, and it led to the murders of several midwives.

Strictly speaking, it's perfectly legal (the information is public record).  Kosher?  No, not really.

That being said, I rather approve of the poop rain she has received via email...so long as it remains as stated by the petulant author:  Epithets and ad hominems.

Legal? Yeah. That's what makes it scary. Scarier still? The  people whose ideologies I agree with who think this is a perfectly acceptable tactic as long as it's directed at people they do not agree with.

1.  An open society was never promised to be a safe society.  Sometimes you have to choose.

2.  I think it's a legal behavior no matter who does it.  I think the editor is an irresponsible fuckwit, though.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Nobody ever said we live in an "open" society. There are a lot of areas where laws protect our privacy. I think it's really interesting that private purchases are protected by confidentiality laws, but donations aren't. My guess is that it's part of the political machine, so that other political groups can more easily add to their mailing/propaganda lists those who ante up.

I'm also noticing the utter partisan sliminess of the press, on both sides. Left or right... they're both tainted. The editor of SF Chronicle tried to tar her as a liar by saying that they didn't publish the addresses, and that's technically true... they merely published a link to a map of donor addresses.

To those of you who think this harassment is acceptable because you find the woman's views reprehensible... what the fuck is wrong with you? You're as disgusting as the people who think it's OK to send hate mail to queers who try to adopt. I'm sorry, condoning harassment because you don't agree with the political views of the person being harassed is fucking sick.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Her views are that I'm not a person.  Just saying.

Oh, that's a line of reactionary hyperbole if I ever read one. She is against gay marriage, therefore she doesn't view gays as human beings? That's a far stretch. I'm opposed to polygamy, does that mean I don't consider polyamorous people to be human beings?

[P3nT4gR4m]

I'm opposed to all forms of marriage. This way I get top piss of gays and heterosexuals.

F'kin sick perverts the lot of them

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I agree with you on the art issue.  Art should never have to come with a disclaimer or statement of intent.

However, I don't buy for a minute that she isn't against Gays.  She went to great lengths to step on them.

By donating to prop 8?

How is that "great lengths to step on" gays?

I disagree with her stance on gay marriage, but come on now, Roger.

Basically the issue is a newspaper publishing a link to a map of addresses of people who donated to a cause most of the paper's readers oppose. I see that as ethically bankrupt and socially irresponsible, and bordering on fomenting hate crimes. What if the map was of donors to the campaign of a gay marriage bill, and it was published by the Washington Examiner?

[P3nT4gR4m]

If you believe marriage is some ancient traditional deal between a man and a woman of opposite sexes then, IMO, you're perfectly entitled to think gay marriage is out of line without, necessarily, being against gay people. It may be the case that you are against gay people but it doesn't logically follow.

Of course a campaigner isn't going to see it that way - if you are in favour of prop 8 you are a homophobic queer hater and this will probably be seen by the more militant anti-8 contingent as license to assault.

Publishing a list of these "homophobic queer haters" will make a violent assault against them more likely to happen.

People may well get beaten the shit out of over something as arbitrarily stupid as promising to live with someone for ever.

SNAFU 

[Requia ☣]

If she's only against marriage she has the right to campaign in favor of some other way to get gays to have the same rights.  (the whole civil union deal)  She didn't, she chose to strip them of those rights.

[Pope Lecherous]

Oh, that's a line of reactionary hyperbole if I ever read one. She is against gay marriage, therefore she doesn't view gays as human beings? That's a far stretch. I'm opposed to polygamy, does that mean I don't consider polyamorous people to be human beings?

I don't have multiple wives, but you've really never considered getting violent to defend your beliefs?  You never saw that you might need to defend yourself from someone else's ignorant/righteous beliefs?  Extreme non-violence can only take you so far.

[fomenter]

voting against prop 8 is not a vote against civil unions, how do you know she doesn't vote yes for, or support civil unions in other ways?

[Honey]

from that article:
Who was it who predicted that if fascism ever came to the United States, it would come in the guise of liberal egalitarianism?

Unfortunately I think it was Jonah Goldberg.   

"The monkey medium is the monkey message."

Marshall McLuhan describes the "content" of a medium as a juicy piece of meat carried by the burglar to distract the watchdog of the mind.   

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Oh, that's a line of reactionary hyperbole if I ever read one. She is against gay marriage, therefore she doesn't view gays as human beings? That's a far stretch. I'm opposed to polygamy, does that mean I don't consider polyamorous people to be human beings?

I don't have multiple wives, but you've really never considered getting violent to defend your beliefs?  You never saw that you might need to defend yourself from someone else's ignorant/righteous beliefs?  Extreme non-violence can only take you so far.

What does this have to do with the conversation?

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

If she's only against marriage she has the right to campaign in favor of some other way to get gays to have the same rights.  (the whole civil union deal)  She didn't, she chose to strip them of those rights.

You have no idea whether she voted in favor of civil unions. Furthermore, it's FUCKING IRRELEVANT.