Replies

And then there is this: Last month, someone posted a map showing the names, home locations, and occupations of thousands of people who gave money to support the passage of Proposition 8, the ballot initiative outlawing gay marriage in California. A number of these Proposition 8 supporters have since reported threatening e-mails and phone calls. ...... Article

And who, I wonder, will be the arbiters who get to decide? ..... shezza

Well, after your name, your address and a map to your house has been published on the Internet because you did NOT support gay marriage and some gay marriage radicals with ski masks come over at 3:00 AM and "teach you a lesson", maybe the local District Attorney would be the one to decide if deliberately publishing your name, address and a map to your house put you in danger of "Imminent lawless action".

Do you believe that posting "maps showing the names, home locations, and occupations of thousands of people who gave money to support the passage of Proposition 8, the ballot initiative outlawing gay marriage in California" on the Internet so that those people are targeted for potential physical attack is a protected First Amendment right?

...speech-friendly scholars see the potential for abuse. Jeffrey Rosen, a law professor at George Washington University who has written on privacy law, points out that in countries where websites can be held liable for user-generated content the law has been used to limit political speech: In Thailand, for example, YouTube was forced to block videos critical of the king.

There is a difference between "threatening emails and phone calls," which is against the law, and outlawing political speech or opinion. These people are talking about legally enforcing the "right" not to have your feelings hurt or to be offended. Did you not follow the recent freedom-of-speech case in Canada regarding Mark Steyn? The organization suing him claimed a 99% success rate in prosecuting people who offended Muslim.

People, at least for now, have the right to offer an opinion on any subject, be it calling Susie a tramp for stealing someone else's boyfriend (e.g., the Juicy Campus gossip website mentioned in the article) or exposing the abominations of an overreaching, corrupt administration. If it's left to that corrupt administration and its minions in the legal system to decide that hurtful comments, gossip, or opposition speech are harmful to the nation ("Fairness" Doctrine), all of society will be muzzled indeed.