Posted by
Playful Walrus on Monday, January 26, 2009 1:02:28 PM
Jessica Garrison and Patrick McGreevy of the Los Angeles Times reported on the battle over campaign contribution disclosure laws in California. As stated in the story, there are legitimate reasons for these laws, but abetting homofascists in harassing and stalking people wasn't one of them.
Supporters of the November ballot measure that [restored voter-approved marriage licensing] went to court earlier this month seeking to throw out a decades-old state law that requires the names and personal information of campaign contributors be made public.
Proposition 8 supporters say they have been harassed after opponents publicized their donations, including the use of interactive online maps showing where they live. Some people say they have received death threats and had their homes vandalized.
The harassment did not end with the election and in fact grew more heated after Nov. 4, measure supporters said.
In the days after the measure, gay rights activists have published the names of donors and targeted some for boycotts.
You can read comments on the blogged version of this article here.
I tend to agree with the campaign finance disclosure laws. It is a shame the information is being misused to threaten, harass, and intimidate those who supported the California Marriage Amendment.
However, rather than calling for a change in the law, I suggest:
-
- Documenting and publicizing stalking, harassment, threats, vandalism, assaults, wrongful terminations, etc. This would include publicizing the arrest/criminal/court records of anyone involved in such behavior – and their address, contact information, and employer, if possible.
- Staying on district attorneys to prosecute such crimes. Sue the perpetrators in civil court.
- Defending your person, family, and property to the fullest extent permitted by law, including the use of firearms.
- Retaliating in kind - well, not really. We tend to be respectful of law and order and civility. Too bad the other side doesn't play by the same rules. But what do you expect?
I have to wonder if the disclosure arguments could also be applied to domestic violence shelters. For obvious reasons, some shelters take great steps to protect their users with privacy. But if those shelters are getting public funding, and if someone is paying alimony or child support to someone there, shouldn’t the payer have full disclosure? After all, just like with the homofascist stalkers, we can simply prosecute those who engage in violence after using the information.