Oaks is in favor of religious freedom

[TripletDaddy]

Publishing such public information is fine, IMO.

Publishing it with a distinctly sinister vibe, intending to vilify an individual is a bit fuzzier.

why is it fuzzier? to which law are you referring that says you cannot assemble public information with the intent to protest and demonstrate?

there is nothing fuzzy about any of this.

Bonus because I know you are reading this post but cant answer it! lol!

[TripletDaddy]

And I don't think Elder Oaks was complaining about the compilation of any lists.

I didn't say he was. I was responding to LA Ute's hypos. I know you are not purposely obfuscating, so perhaps you haven't read all the posts in the thread.

[byu71]

why is it fuzzier? to which law are you referring that says you cannot assemble public information with the intent to protest and demonstrate?

there is nothing fuzzy about any of this.

Bonus because I know you are reading this post but cant answer it! lol!

Good one. I may come around to thinking like Wuap and proclaim you the wittiest person in the world.

[SloanHater]

The issue is not whether it is "appropriate." Appropriate is a meaningless term because it is loaded with bias. LA Ute's "side" will say that it is inappropriate.

The law says that there is nothing wrong with compiling public records. People can then use those records to know where to protest.

Once the protests or demonstrations turn to violence of crime, then any such behavior becomes inappropriate.

So are you of the opinion that compiling and publishing these lists is voter intimidation? I believe that was the original topic.

[TripletDaddy]

So are you of the opinion that compiling and publishing these lists is voter intimidation? I believe that was the original topic.

No. by definition, it occurs after the election is over and voting results are made public. Do we have any reason to believe that on election night, some votes were swayed or even withheld entirely because some feared that a couple of months later, their votes would be made public and their homes protested?

[TheBYUGuy]

Wow, after reading the thread and Trib article, I was expecting something much more inflammatory or controversial from Oaks actual speech. I was ready to adopt a "OK, sure the apostles might be good guys, but maybe they're a little off base sometimes" stance. Then I decided to actually take a look at his speech.

In a 4200-word speech, the Trib decided to take 23 words out of context, spin it in their special way, and villify Oaks for it. The way they did this was completely ridiculous.

When taken in context, Oaks was essentially saying, "It's anti-democratic and un-American for people to use violence and intimidation to discourage others from being involved in the political process, and there is a precedent for this where laws were created to prevent such activity."

Instead, if you read the Trib article, what you see Oaks saying is, "We as Mormons are bothered because we've been subject to gruesome and extreme acts of violence like blacks were in the 60's."

More than anything, this is just a reminder to me that it's rare to get a straight story when you pay attention to the news.

[TripletDaddy]

Wow, after reading the thread and Trib article, I was expecting something much more inflammatory or controversial from Oaks actual speech. I was ready to adopt a "OK, sure the apostles might be good guys, but maybe they're a little off base sometimes" stance. Then I decided to actually take a look at his speech.

In a 4200-word speech, the Trib decided to take 23 words out of context, spin it in their special way, and villify Oaks for it. The way they did this was completely ridiculous.

When taken in context, Oaks was essentially saying, "It's anti-democratic and un-American for people to use violence and intimidation to discourage others from being involved in the political process, and there is a precedent for this where laws were created to prevent such activity."

Instead, if you read the Trib article, what you see Oaks saying is, "We as Mormons are bothered because we've been subject to gruesome and extreme acts of violence like blacks were in the 60's."

More than anything, this is just a reminder to me that it's rare to get a straight story when you pay attention to the news.

fwiw, I think D-HO is correct. Violence and intimidation in inappropriate.

I think that some in this forum may have co-opted Oaks's talk and started lumping in any opposition into the categories to which Oaks was referring.

[SeattleUte]

I don't think anyone is disputing the legality or appropriateness of boycotting businesses. The question is whether or not it is appropriate to target individuals?

[YOUTUBE]mLFTb-ZKqn4[/YOUTUBE]

Is it inappropriate to run an ad announcing so and so gave $450,000 to Prop. 8? Why would it be? It's public information for a reason. I am not aware of any right of privacy as to donationt to political causes. Maybe it shoud give pause that the donation is a shameful thing to the donor.

All that's happening here is that the LDS Church is doing what it has done all along. It's retaliating in the court of public opinion. Gays have a right to characterize LDS as anti-civil rights and homophobic, and the COJSOLDS has a right to play the vicitm. It's all a game going on here. No one is breaking the law. Now it's up to the public to decide who's right.

Personally, I feel no sympathy for people who purport to do something for moral reasons then whining about such things as this fact being made public or losing business over the act. I feel this way especially about rich people. That wouldn't sit well with me regardless of the cause, so I'm not persuaded.

[SloanHater]

No. by definition, it occurs after the election is over and voting results are made public. Do we have any reason to believe that on election night, some votes were swayed or even withheld entirely because some feared that a couple of months later, their votes would be made public and their homes protested?

I'm not following your logic. It seems irrelevant when lists are published. Doesn't the possibility (threat) of ending up a target list (or Dishonor Roll) influence future voters and voting behavior? Perhaps I'm misjudging the intent of making these lists, but I don't see how they could be used constructively.

On a side-note, groups like Californians Against Hate weren't just publishing Public Records. They were using Public Records to find Personal Information and make that public.

We've taken public information from the California Secretary of State’s Office and added telephone numbers and web sites when available. We also included commentary on some of the more interesting and controversial donors. Individuals and businesses gave a vast amount of money to take away our equality, and we want you to know who they are.

[SeattleUte]

fwiw, I think D-HO is correct. Violence and intimidation in inappropriate.

I think that some in this forum may have co-opted Oaks's talk and started lumping in any opposition into the categories to which Oaks was referring.

Can someone please enlighten me specifically about the scale and frequency and quality of purported "violence and intimidation"? Thanks in advance.

[cowboy]

Keying cars: no
Vandalism: no
publishing public info: fine. what's wrong with that?

How is the destruction of a business through a concerted smear effort acceptable, but keying the business owner's car not? Aren't they both forms of intimidation?

Granted, one act is legal, while the other is not, but aren't we talking about a moral and ethical compass here rather than a legal one?

[beefytee]

No. by definition, it occurs after the election is over and voting results are made public. Do we have any reason to believe that on election night, some votes were swayed or even withheld entirely because some feared that a couple of months later, their votes would be made public and their homes protested?

Can anyone confirm this? I thought public disclosure usually happened before votes. Of course late donations aren't going to come out until after, but I would guess most donations come in a ways before the vote and are disclosed before voting happens.

I imagine campaigns try to get the donations ASAP as they have to plan and budget.

[SeattleUte]

(or Dishonor Roll)

Why should it be dishonorable? I'm not scared of people finding out who I am and how I feel about this issue.

[JohnnyLingo]

Is it inappropriate to run an ad announcing so and so gave $450,000 to Prop. 8? Why would it be? It's public information for a reason. I am not aware of any right of privacy as to donationt to political causes. Maybe it shoud give pause that the donation is a shameful thing to the donor.

What is the intent of the ads posted above?

[RobinFinderson]

Perhaps I'm misjudging the intent of making these lists, but I don't see how they could be used constructively.

They can be used constructively to protest at those individuals' homes (or more likely, outside of their gated communities). Political donations, which are a form of protected public speech, are appropriately countered by demonstrations, which are a form of protected public speech.

Violence, threats, etc, are not protected public speech.