Oaks is in favor of religious freedom

[DU Ute]

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]

These are awful no matter what side of the issue you're on.

[YOUTUBE]<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/VITKNZ2Lm74&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/VITKNZ2Lm74&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/YOUTUBE]

[LA Ute]

Would it be repugnant to American values for a black church to organize a boycott of businesses openly displaying the confederate flag?

Would it be repugnant to American values for a black church to organize a boycott of businesses where the owners had contributed money to support anti-miscegenation laws?

Big part of the debate. Is opposing same-sex marriage the same as opposing miscegenation? You obviously think so, I don't. I hope my side wins that argument.

Even in you scenario, is keying cars of supporters of a racist measure OK? How about vandalizing their church buildings? Is that OK? Is publishing a map showing the homes of even small donors to the racist measure OK? How do we decide which types of political positions are so loathsome that it's OK to intimidate and try to silence those who take those positions?

[TripletDaddy]

Big part of the debate. Is opposing same-sex marriage the same as opposing miscegenation? You obviously think so, I don't. I hope my side wins that argument.

I notice you speak in this language often. It certainly connotes hostility and bias, although I am sure it is unintended on your part. You have referenced "sides" before. Good luck to your "side," I guess.

Even in you scenario, is keying cars of supporters of a racist measure OK? How about vandalizing their church buildings? Is that OK? Is publishing a map showing the homes of even small donors to the racist measure OK? How do we decide which types of political positions are so loathsome that it's OK to intimidate and try to silence those who take those positions?

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

[JohnnyLingo]

These are awful no matter what side of the issue you're on.

[YOUTUBE]<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/VITKNZ2Lm74&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/VITKNZ2Lm74&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/YOUTUBE]

Help me out here... what's with the counting kids?

[RobinFinderson]

These are awful no matter what side of the issue you're on.

Indeed. The production values are terrible.

[kccougar]

Personally, I think if a person is going to contribute $450,000 to an issue to shape public policy, I have no problem with the public knowing that person's name. For better or for worse, the public interest is best served when people are held individually accountable for their speech.

Their speech?

[TripletDaddy]

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]

450K? holy crap. that is a lot of money to donate to anything.

donations are a matter of public record. why is it inappropriate to note that someone voted or donated a certain way? It might be uncomfortable for the person that has taken the unpopular stance, but why is it inappropriate?

When it moves to actual criminal behavior: vandalism, threats, etc...then clearly it is inappropriate. People have the right to donate and to support whatever cause they so choose. they have no right to donate off the public record.

[kccougar]

They have no right to donate off the public record.

Why not?

[byu71]

450K? holy crap. that is a lot of money to donate to anything.

donations are a matter of public record. why is it inappropriate to note that someone voted or donated a certain way? It might be uncomfortable for the person that has taken the unpopular stance, but why is it inappropriate?

When it moves to actual criminal behavior: vandalism, threats, etc...then clearly it is inappropriate. People have the right to donate and to support whatever cause they so choose. they have no right to donate off the public record.

Truly the risk you take for standing up for what you believe and in some cases putting your money where your mouth is. You then can be the subject of malicious and slanderous types of attacks, verbal I mean and there will be plenty of folks supporting the justification of making such attacks.

[RobinFinderson]

Help me out here... what's with the counting kids?

Good question. The message is totally muddled. DU is right. These ads are terrible.

[SloanHater]

450K? holy crap. that is a lot of money to donate to anything.

donations are a matter of public record. why is it inappropriate to note that someone voted or donated a certain way? It might be uncomfortable for the person that has taken the unpopular stance, but why is it inappropriate?

When it moves to actual criminal behavior: vandalism, threats, etc...then clearly it is inappropriate. People have the right to donate and to support whatever cause they so choose. they have no right to donate off the public record.

So there is no difference between Public Record and compiling a list from Public Records targeting specific individuals? I bet you voted for Tricky Dick.

[TripletDaddy]

Why not?

because that is how political contributions are made...public record. It isn't my rule. All political contributions are a matter of public record.

If you wish to lobby that political contributions be made privately, that is a separate issue (not sure that would be a great idea, btw...we want to know where big corps are donating cash, how political candidates vote on issues, etc). But right now, there is no right to privacy when making a political contribution.

Ergo, why would it be inappropriate to note which way a person voted or donated? It is all out there for everyone to see, anyway.

[JohnnyLingo]

Publishing such public information is fine, IMO.

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

[TripletDaddy]

So there is no difference between Public Record and compiling a list from Public Records targeting specific individuals? I bet you voted for Tricky Dick.

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.

[kccougar]

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.

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