So there's this gay domestic partnership initiative in Washington State -- we'll get into the details later, I promise -- but under the law of the Evergreen State, petition gatherers have to obtain over a hundred thousand valid signatures to have the measure placed on the ballot. Once submitted, as far as I understand, those names typically are part of the public record, but you'd have to go to the Secretary of State's office and read them page-by-page to have the information. "Public," technically, but not really.
Well, the opponents of the measure aren't pleased that activists are placing this measure up for a vote, and they've made their intent clear to set up a website which gathers and prints the names and listed addresses for everyone who dared to sign the petitions. Ostensibly, they claim, it's to deter fraudulent signature-gathering by open sourcing the verification, but can can reasonably expect that it will be used as a tool of social ostracism and potential harassment at home and in the workplace. Moreover, we all know from the EightMaps experience in California how easy it would be to mash up this data with GoogleMaps -- or, for that matter, ZabaSearch information with each signer's home phone number.
Signing a petition isn't completely private -- we understand that subsequent folks signing the same page will see our names, as will the organizers -- but it's not something which one expects will be seen by the public at large. And no matter how much we in the Netroots generally praise transparency and disclosure as unabashed goods, the truth is that at times these principles run into privacy interests which we also hold dear -- and I think this is especially the case when all we're talking about is indicating support for putting a measure on the ballot (not necessarily in support of the measure itself -- but probably -- assuming folks know what they're signing), and opposed to the financing of a campaign in support of it (or of a candidate) for which that disclosure also serves important anti-corruption interests.
For these reasons, lawyers on behalf of the petition-gatherers have sued the WA Secretary of State to block the public release of the signatures, arguing that the opponents' efforts "chill[] free speech ... particularly when it is reasonably probable that those exercising their First Amendment rights would be subjected to threats and harassment." Among other facts, they cited a stalker photographing of a petition organizer's house while his daughter played outside; late-night obscene and threatening phone calls; car windows broken; a house egged and floured repeatedly; a stairway at another supporter's house doused in urine.
A federal judge in yesterday granted their motion for a temporary restraining order, blocking for now the release of the signatures citing the irreparable harm which could result, a sign that he sees the balance of the equities and constitutional values supporting individual privacy over mass disclosure. The order lasts until Sept. 3, 2009, which is the date set for the hearing on a longer-lasting preliminary injunction pending a full decision on the merits.
::
::
How you come down on all this -- as to whether privacy is more important than disclosure, or whether the names should be published while trusting the police to deal with acts of harassment when they occur -- may well depend on one fact about which I've been deliberately coy up until this point. Because while I noted that this was a "gay domestic partnership initiative," I didn't actually say whether it was pro gay marriage or against.
Don't touch the play button yet -- keep your brain on pause, and decide whether you assess the political freedoms and privacy rights differently based on whether it's gay activists or their opponents who are claiming fear of intimidation, and which represents the opposite side seeking to publish and expose the names and addresses of those signing a controversial petition.
Done? Good. Here's the truth: it's an anti-gay petition, seeking to rescind Washington state’s newly expanded domestic partnership law. It's some gay rights advocates who are seeking to publish the names, and the anti-gay groups who are seeking to keep the signers' names private. Now how do you feel about it?
We had some rather heated discussions here over the past few months regarding wholly different questions of the durability of neutral principles when it comes to threats to gay rights, and I would rather this question be played out in an arena where the ultimate justice wasn't so clearly on the same side of the table from which the potentially objectionable behavior is emanating. If this were a battle between two sides of a local zoning dispute, we could easily focus on the First Amendment and privacy questions -- but, of course, it's only with questions this contentious for which opponents would consider this much effort in exposing who's on the other side, though I would think we stand united in decrying any kind of violence, property damage or threats against our opponents.
I do think, deep down, that whatever your answer is, it ought to be the same regardless of whose ox is being threatened, but rather ought to be based upon how you believe the public's right to know should be balanced against claims of harassment for holding politically unpopular ideas. We can't have one set of principles for when progressives are being threatened and another for conservatives, no matter how loathsome their beliefs may be in this instance.
So, what say you, Kossacks?
Background
Plaintiff's Motion for TRO
WhoSigned.org // Know Thy Neighbor