- Joined
- Mar 5, 2008
- Messages
- 112,990
- Reaction score
- 60,557
- Location
- Sarasota Fla
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
AP 4pm est
The Supreme Court on Friday got involved for the second time this week in a case in which opponents of gay rights fear they will be harassed if their views are made public.
The high court will consider whether Washington state officials can release more than 138,500 names on a petition seeking a vote on overturning the state's domestic partnership rights.
Protect Marriage Washington, which unsuccessfully opposed the law giving gay couples expanded rights, wants to shield from disclosure the signers of the petition for a referendum on that law. The group says it fears harassment by gay rights supporters, some of whom have vowed to post signers' names on the Internet.
People who aren't willing to stand behind their opinions don't deserve to have their opinions counted.
I don't know about that. The ability to express your opinion anonymously is an incredibly important right. When people are forced to speak publicly, there is a serious risk that their speech will be chilled and they will shy away from supporting unpopular positions, whatever they be.
There's no valid reason to keep petitions secret.
If people are such wusses they can't take a public stance, screw'em.
Anonymity encourages people to be lazy and thoughtless. It doesn't protect the unpopular views and unpleasant truths that society needs to face in order to progress-- it only emboldens cowards to engage in the kind of harassment and character assassination that it purports to protect us from. Just look at the difference between this place-- with the limited public identities we maintain-- and something like /b/chan or YouTube user comments.
Yes, people will choose their words more carefully if they know they'll be held accountable for them. I think this is a good thing.
What do you think about the secret ballot?
Anonymity encourages people to be lazy and thoughtless. It doesn't protect the unpopular views and unpleasant truths that society needs to face in order to progress-- it only emboldens cowards to engage in the kind of harassment and character assassination that it purports to protect us from. Just look at the difference between this place-- with the limited public identities we maintain-- and something like /b/chan or YouTube user comments.
Yes, people will choose their words more carefully if they know they'll be held accountable for them. I think this is a good thing.
What do you think would have been more effective:
John Hancock Boldly Signing Where No Man Signed Before...
...
or..
an anonymous Pamphlet entitled "The Declaration of Independence"?
If something isn't worth their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor for, why are they bothering?
PETITIONS are NOT "ballots".
Welcome to the land where words mean things.
People who aren't willing to stand behind their opinions don't deserve to have their opinions counted.
People who aren't willing to stand behind their opinions don't deserve to have their opinions counted.
However, I feel that names on a sheet are too easy to forge and falsify - petitions aren't dependable and secure considering the heavy influence and control they can have.
Yes, look at how many times Mickey Mouse was registered to vote by ACORN.
I wonder how many times Mickey actually voted?
Obama did win, you know...
I think the difference between here and there has more to do with user demographics and moderation than it does with level of anonymity. You can be as anonymous on this site as you can be on youtube, but we don't get a lot of crossover in terms of comment type.
While you're right that it can allow people to be lazy, it also allows people with views outside of the mainstream to back their beliefs without risking retribution.
I'm a moderate Republican. On the "out of the mainstream" scale, I'm pretty low. However, if every vote I made or position I supported was made public, I would be very reluctant to participate in politics at all due to the demographics of the industry I work in. I already refuse to donate more than $25 to any individual candidate, because I don't want my name showing up on opensecrets. If it's that bad for me, think of what it's like for other people.
Someone who opposes gay marriage while working in an industry dominated by gay men has the choice to either refrain from participating in the political process or lose his job. The same thing could apply to socialists working at banks, conservatives working in social service organizations, or communists/fascists working anywhere.
However, I feel that names on a sheet are too easy to forge and falsify - petitions aren't dependable and secure considering the heavy influence and control they can have. So I support some bureau or something varifying the names - making sure they're real people. But that process should be kept private and only used to verify - not used against the people who signed it.
I think there needs to be a distinction made between a vote for public officials which needs to be kept secret, and signing a petition.
In the case of voting there are people to check that you are a registered voter, and that you vote once.
Signing this petition to change a state law. What if there are people who signed who are not citizens or sign ten different lists. People should have the right to scrutinize the lists and challange them where appropriate. If the lists are kept secret people will not be able to insure accuracy.
I think if you're going to put your name on a piece of paper which is intended to change the code of law which effects everyone on your patch of turf, it should be a matter of record viewable by everyone on your patch of turf.
If you don't want to be on the public record as being for or against something, then don't go on record.
So all votes should be made public?
I think if you're going to put your name on a piece of paper which is intended to change the code of law which effects everyone on your patch of turf, it should be a matter of record viewable by everyone on your patch of turf.
If you don't want to be on the public record as being for or against something, then don't go on record.
I think it's fine to keep private which officials you vote for, but just as the votes cast by those officials are public record, so should petitions be public record.
I've never been entirely convinced that ballots should be secret. It serves a purpose, of course, but there are also vast shenanigans enabled by it.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?