Homosexual attack on free speech
They want to target those who sign petitions they don't like
"This Thursday in a federal court in Washington state, U.S. District Judge Benjamin Settle will, ahem, settle an important question... Specifically, Judge Settle must resolve whether Washington state’s Public Disclosure Act, requiring the Secretary of State to publically disclose the signers of petitions, violates First Amendment protections for voters signing a petition. That is, does it violate the rights of those signers not wanting to be threatened or intimidated . . .
“There have been few precedents on whether the names and addresses of people who sign petitions should be considered a public record,” wrote Ballot Access News editor, Richard Winger, recently. “Some states provide by law that the records are not public, but most states do not.” Thus, in most states, any citizen could request (and pay for) copies of the actual petitions turned into the Secretary of State, containing all the names and addresses and often other personal information.
Enter Brian Murphy. He started a website — WhoSigned.org — in essence to “out” the signers of Referendum 71 petitions. He pledged to create a searchable database of all those people who had signed the referendum petition and he encouraged supporters of the domestic partnership legislation to have a “dialogue” with those who had signed the petition.
Unsurprisingly, some petition signers became more than a little concerned about the nature and tone such a dialogue might take. Larry Stickney, the head of Protect Marriage Washington, which sponsored Referendum 71, accused opponents of taking “the politics of personal destruction to new levels. I am a personal recipient of dozens of obscene and threatening e-mails and phone calls since we filed this.”
Source
28 comments:
I think exposing these names is fine, so long as every name posting on gay and left-wing web sites is also made public. If this court feels that one group deserves no right to privacy, then no one should have it. But, this being the Peoples Republic of Washington, ya never know!
These are thug tactics often used by large organized labor. Their intention is to intimidate people into silence to control the legislative agenda.
These are thug tactics often used by large organized labor. Their intention is to intimidate people into silence to control the legislative agenda.
This is right out of the Union/Democrate play book.
Can't win at the ballot box, intimidate everyone from showing up to vote. Jimmy Hoffa would be proud!
Wonder where the blacks are now? THIS is a civil right issue, not gay "marriage!"
It is because of things like this that I refuse to sign referendums, online or offline. Who needs the aggravation?
Buy a gun. Then you can sign anything you like.
These tactics are no surprise when you stop to remember who actually started the labor movement in this country. True communists don't change their basic methods, do they.
I guess this god also has the same final solution for Africa and India etc., etc. (And remember what goes around comes around, if not to you to someone you love.)
This is a real humdinger for me...
On the one hand I believe that petitions intended for the legislature should be tabled and considered part of the public record.
On the other hand I am aware of some of the ocassionally vicious targetting of individuals who supported Prop 8 for example.
One should be free to lobby one's political representatives without fear of persecution - indeed I would argue that the fundamental rights of representative democracy rest squarely on this point. As a result, I lean slightly towards protecting the names but with real reservations.
However, I think that those who are prepared to put their names to petitions mut expect that others will be able to see whose signatures are on that document...
Wow, this is a toughie. Maybe the document including signatures must be public but prohibit the copyng of the personal details section...
Ah - the wisdom of solomon!
Anonymous said...
"I guess this god also has the same final solution for Africa and India etc., etc. (And remember what goes around comes around, if not to you to someone you love."
Why not. Except for the animals and beautiful scenery, what purpose does Africa serve? The same could be said for India, except we need them to fix our computers..... And not to worry. No queers in my family.
Wow! Now there's a sound argument, fully backed by evidence. NOT!
"faggots choose their lifestyle."
---Sexuality is like taste, you don't choose to like chocolate or vanilla, you like either or both or something else or nothing at all.
For example, I don't find blacks attractive. Halle Berry and Tyra Banks will always be ugly to me, I also can't understand how Nicole Brown could have hooked up with OJ Simpson in the first place, the idea of him putting his black thing into her makes me want to vomit. So you see? It's all a matter of taste, OJ has a thing for blondes, why? I don't know. It would make more sense for him to date his own kind, but sexual attraction doesn't have to make sense, it's a matter of taste.
In fact, women and men have little in common, they talk different, they think different, they have different needs, different hobbies, different everything.
I lost my best friend to a woman, that little slut controls his weekends, who he sees, where he goes, what he does. And here's the worst part, she's not even faithful, that whore flirts with other men. But my friend puts up with her because he has no choice, it's either her or going back to hiring hookers for $150-$300 a screw. He can't replace her because most women find him ugly, only gays flirt with him. But can he give up women and turn to men? Nope, he can't, so he's stuck with that whore until he finds another.
"faggots choose their lifestyle."
"Wow! Now there's a sound argument, fully backed by evidence. NOT!"
I agree with you 100%
Nice dodge attempt Anon, but everyone, including you, knows better.
"This is right out of the Union/Democrate play book."
Please provide the ISDN number for this book.
Well, "Freud believed that all humans were bisexual, by which he primarily meant that everyone incorporates aspects of both sexes. In his view, this was true anatomically and therefore also mentally and psychologically. Heterosexuality and homosexuality both developed from this original bisexual disposition.[2]"
And he also wrote this to a mother:
"In 1935, Freud wrote a mother who had asked him to treat her son a letter that later became famous[3]:
I gather from your letter that your son is a homosexual. I am most impressed by the fact that you do not mention this term yourself in your information about him. May I question you why you avoid it? Homosexuality is assuredly no advantage, but it is nothing to be ashamed of, no vice, no degradation; it cannot be classified as an illness; we consider it to be a variation of the sexual function, produced by a certain arrest of sexual development..... "
Read the rest of the letter here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sigmund_Freud's_views_about_homosexuality
"as for saying it is NOT a choice, are you then justifying and enabling other perverts like pedophiles? All actions are choice and personally accountable for"
---Society distinguishes the choices between consenting adults and those choices of those who cannot give consent. Psychiatry considers sadomasochism to be a perversion, yet should the state go into your bedroom to see if your wife is beating you with whip? Should a leather bar in an industrial part of town be shut down? What about infantilism, a perversion in which an adult dresses like a baby and behaves as such? Should we prosecute people who make the equipment infantilists use?
I don't think we want the state messing with our money, our guns, our bodies, our free speech and our sex lives.
Just like government has no business paying for abortions they should also not be promoting abstinence. Just because some parents can't or won't act like parents doesn't mean big government needs to become our collective babysitter.
I'll agree with Sigmund Freud who says that conservatism is the result of hindered sexual development. "Conservatives have encountered a blockage in normal psychological development, rendering them abnormal."
It is a choice. Love is a choice, lust is a choice. We are free agents making choices that determine our direction that determine our destiny.
"It is a choice. Love is a choice, lust is a choice. We are free agents making choices that determine our direction that determine our destiny"
---You can't choose taste, I can't make myself like fat women or black women, it doesn't feel right for me.
You can only choose behavior, adultery vs. faithfulness, promiscuity vs. monogamy or celibacy, being true to yourself or making others happy.
Is lust really a choice when so many religious men speak of how lust tempted them and how they resisted? And if love is a choice how do you explain women in love with the men that abuse them physically? Or married people that fall in love with others?
We can choose behavior, but we cannot choose attraction. I don't think anyone can.
You are right Bobby. Homosexuality is a disposition, which some may try to resist in themselves because of social prejudice. Acting out homosexual behavior may be a choice or giving in to the urge, but so what if those involved are adults and consenting, and not deceiving others about it.
Anon 8:35,
It's the acting on those desires that leads to homosexuals having a lifespan that averages to 20 years shorter than non-homosexuals.
Such statistics, if true, can only be derived from homosexuals who are self-declaring. And even if true of all homosexuals, it is up to them how risky they wish their lifestyle to be - just as smokers, drinkers, dangerous sports enthusiasts, stressful careerists, the overweight, etc. etc. However, not all homosexuals are promiscuous singles, many live quietly and monogamously.
Homophobes - another face of repuglicans.
Anon 5:34,
"Please provide the ISDN number for this book."
Here's the ISBN for one written from the inside: 0679721134
And an examination of how those tactics play out in real life: 1596981091
Thanks for proving how "tolerant" you are.
Do you really expect to gain any respect through such a demonstration of outright hatred?
BTW… Do you also plan to shoot your mother for being a "breeder"?
"You breeders better be scared! ...Keep it coming, bitches... we own you now... You like the color red so much? Then you should be covered in it."
And with those predatory threats, we are all reminded once more exactly what about homosexuals and why normal people tend to find homosexuals generally unlikeable.
"Here's the ISBN for one written from the inside: ..."
You actually gave a liberal what they wanted? I am disappointed in you, Luke. Please turn in your Rightist Membership card.
Don't forget the Dedication that Alinsky included in his first edition (later removed). It says it all:
"Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history (and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins — or which is which), the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom — Lucifer"
Post a Comment