Names and addresses of Texans who signed anti-gay petition leaked online

  • metta

    Posts: 39143

    Jul 29, 2014 3:18 PM GMT
    Names and addresses of Texans who signed anti-gay petition leaked online



    - See more at: http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/names-and-addresses-texans-who-signed-anti-gay-petition-leaked-online290714
  • metta

    Posts: 39143

    Jul 29, 2014 3:40 PM GMT
    http://heropetition.com/
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 29, 2014 5:49 PM GMT
    According to Hero Petition, it's not a "leak" since this is public information, that the Supreme Court has ruled cannot be blocked from public dissemination.
  • roadbikeRob

    Posts: 14371

    Jul 29, 2014 7:30 PM GMT
    Well this will be an endlessly massive list since about 97% of the population of Texas signed these horrible, anti-gay petitions. Yet you will have some naïve fools on here who will defend the lone star shithole and make up all kinds of nonsensical propaganda saying that Texas is changing for the better and becoming less conservative. What a bold faced lie. Texas will never change, it will always be conservative and intolerant. They can take all their fancy maps, charts, and polls and throw them out the window. Texas will always be extremely conservative. But don't try to educate cuckoo Koastal from Houston, delusional Ej101 from Fort Worth or immature dumbass Varus from Austin, because they will just distort the truth and keep covering up for homophobic, hateful people of Texas.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 31, 2014 6:11 PM GMT
    metta8 saidNames and addresses of Texans who signed anti-gay petition leaked online

    - See more at: http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/names-and-addresses-texans-who-signed-anti-gay-petition-leaked-online290714


    Leaked online?

    Which of course brings up the question of just where is it proper to take a leak

    giphy.gif
    florida-marriage-protection_zps780943d9.
    n-CHARLIE-CRIST-large570.jpg?6
    297px-Charlie_Crist_Signature.svg.png
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 31, 2014 6:29 PM GMT
    On one hand I think that in the promotion of transparency and understanding that different people have different opinions and beliefs, it's good to put names to the anonymous votes that seek to infringe or outright suppress the rights of others.

    On the other hand, I think that people are not only entitled to their belief, but also entitled to their right to privacy, and the right to not have their most personal information, mainly their full name and the location they live, published somewhere as openly accessible on the internet.

    I think my opinion ends up being:
    "Belief may be held privately, and expressed anonymously. However, attempting to perform actions based on belief (such as voting in order to pass legislation) should not be done anonymously: if you have the courage to vote, and potentially affect the lives of other human beings, you should have the courage to put your name behind your vote."

    I think having their street addresses shown is too much, however. They do have a right to privacy, as does their family.

    There is the issue of, even if they didn't provide the street address, only providing the name, it'd still give enough information to look up and likely eventually find out their street addresses...so I'm not sure. This is just my opinion, and it isn't complete. It'll be something to think more about.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 31, 2014 6:50 PM GMT
    Kodiak said...It'll be something to think more about.


    You can play with the application as much as you want; you've already got the formulation. The street issue merely ties into anonymity, as you note. You're particularly correct in thinking that "Belief may be held privately, and expressed anonymously. However, attempting to perform actions based on belief (such as voting in order to pass legislation) should not be done anonymously" because, as I mentioned in another thread...
    that doesn't mean that you don't champion their rights in this land of the free. You don't prevent someone from enjoying their human rights because you don't like them. So it is completely proper to judge differently how they pray and how they vote.
  • Apparition

    Posts: 3529

    Aug 03, 2014 2:17 PM GMT
    for 100 hundred years EVERYONE had a book delivered to their door every year with the list of everyone's name, address, and phone number. I dont see what the big deal is.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 03, 2014 3:14 PM GMT
    Apparition saidfor 100 hundred years EVERYONE had a book delivered to their door every year with the list of everyone's name, address, and phone number. I dont see what the big deal is.


    I'll be honest, that thought was in the back of my head when I posted to this topic earlier--but it's been so long since I've seen a phone-book, I forgot if it even had street addresses in it--or at least, house/apartment numbers in it, you know?

    But it's a good point. You can get an unlisted number for greater privacy, but I think it costs some extra amount with your phone company...? I'm not sure. Will have to look it up later.

    Best I can say is, at least with the phone book, you have other people with similar names around yours, and at the very least it gives you a chance to run if you start hearing on the news about how all the Sarah Conners' have gone missing under suspicious circumstances.
  • coolarmydude

    Posts: 9190

    Aug 03, 2014 4:46 PM GMT
    As long as Citizens United stands, then all donor names should be made public. Campaigns and elections are no longer a private affair as Free Speech is pegged to the dollar, which makes our democracy a commercial transaction.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 03, 2014 9:16 PM GMT
    coolarmydude saidAs long as Citizens United stands, then all donor names should be made public. Campaigns and elections are no longer a private affair as Free Speech is pegged to the dollar, which makes our democracy a commercial transaction.


    This goes beyond free speech regardless of its cost. A person's ballot is private. But anyone trying to sway how another person votes is subject to scrutiny. How else is a fair election assured?

    Neither are candidates allowed to run identifying themselves only by their klu klux klan headdress. We get to know who they are. That part isn't private.

    That ought to also be the argument against the anonymity of super PAC donations.

    If we want fair and clean elections then the absolutely only aspect which ought to be private is an individual's final ballot so that the electorate votes without fear of reprisal. Every other aspect ought to be subject to public scrutiny. As are the lives of the candidates, so be the lives of their supporters.
  • tj85016

    Posts: 4123

    Aug 03, 2014 10:52 PM GMT
    Apparition saidfor 100 hundred years EVERYONE had a book delivered to their door every year with the list of everyone's name, address, and phone number. I dont see what the big deal is.


    so why not just publish all the HIV and gonorrhea test results also

    the end of personnel privacy in the US sucks
  • jaroslav123

    Posts: 600

    Aug 03, 2014 11:33 PM GMT
    This reminds me when WikiLeaks leaked the names, telephone numbers and addresses of BNP supporters.

    Whilst I disagree with their views, the person who leaked this list online should be slapped around the face. With a chair.