Skip to main content

View Diary: SCOTUS To Hear Case On Right To Know Anti-Gay Signers (198 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  but that would make no sense (0+ / 0-)

    What exactly is the line to be drawn? Petitions can be read, but no notes can be taken?  Notes but only initials?  Names but not addresses?  Post on the internet but only allow queries?

    Essentially, this case is about the tension between documents that have always been public, and new ways of publicizing documents that actually make them accessible to the public.

    The solution is to address the harm that secrecy is supposed to address, i.e., prosecute harassment.

    Furthermore, I would note (in response to other posts on this thread) that there is no right to a secret ballot.  Some New England towns still conduct their town meetings without them.

    "Well, I'm sure I'd feel much worse if I weren't under such heavy sedation..."--David St. Hubbins

    by Old Left Good Left on Sun Jan 17, 2010 at 04:35:07 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  Harassment isn't always visible. (0+ / 0-)

      in the case of a marijuana, or pro-Union initiative, i can see data aggregators selling the names to potential employers as part of a comprehensive dossier.

      I am not currently Licensed to Practice in this State.

      by ben masel on Sun Jan 17, 2010 at 06:34:12 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site