Posts
So, here's an interesting article relevant to our class about revealing the names of people who donated money in support of California's Proposition 8 (to make marriage btwn people of the same sex forbidden). The law currently requires the availability of the names of people who donate more than $100 to some political cause and the folks who donated to this cause are now being harassed, boycotted, etc. for their support of the Proposition. What I find particularly interesting is that a lawyer arguing on behalf of all these folks wants the names to be kept secret because revealing the names violates their right to free speech. The question for us, as we embark to become conversant in such topics, is what the right to free speech is a right to and does revealing these names violate such a right.
If you're inclined to share an opinion now, feel free.
Mental Models of Purpose of College
2 years ago
It said in the article that Google was under question as well because of their mapping technology. So I went to Google maps and typed in proposition 8 supporters and I was very surprised to find that stuff actually came up, the churches that were in the article and businesses and what not. I don’t really care that much if people are paying to support proposition 8. Is it really necessary for their names to be put down? I bet the first person do to was like some really anti gay guy who was like, “I want everyone to know I hate the gays.” And everyone after just went along with it. Some of the supporters donated $1 million if they are willing to donate that much, why would they not like to have they names down for their cause?
ReplyDeleteI think that, given (what I might call) the undeniable fact that money often means power in this country, and that the transparency the article refers to so consistently is important in terms of holding people accountable for their actions, the public record of the donors' names does not seem to me to be a violation of their rights. This is not to say that I advocate what other individuals have done: vandalism, threats, slander, and libel are all illegal actions in the United States. However, especially since I brought up capitalism, I think that I have a right to boycott corporations whose CEOs' opinions I happen to disagree with. If you are willing to donate money, but only in secret, what sort of responsibility is that? Should we/are we not obligated to take responsibility for our actions, our words, and how we spend our money? This is the same way I feel about Juicy Campus (it makes me so mad!). People post anonymously and because of their anonymity, often write heinous things that they would not otherwise write (if their names would be seen by readers). If you are not ashamed of your contribution, don't hide it. And if you are ashamed of your contribution, or are fearful of the consequences, perhaps you ought to rethink the action you chose in the first place.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI would have to agree with you when it comes to knowing where CEOs stand on certain issues. If the corporation's business is directly affecting the outcome of someother issue. But if their business dealt with irrelevant issues then I would say it is not important to know where they stand even if I happen to significantly disagree with them.
ReplyDeleteAs far as the article though I would have to say that at the time of the donation they gave up their right's to keep their names hidden. Now maybe since this is leading to threats and potentially hideous acts then the law might need to be evaluated. But since they donated at the time the law allowed their names to be seen I would say tough luck; thats the way the law was not saying that thats the way the law should be.
My confusion with this article is that I don't understand how the right to free speech might have been violated. Maybe a right to privacy, but as Ryan has noted, there was no such right and as Amanda has noted perhaps there ought not to have been such a right.
ReplyDeleteI'm just not seeing the violation of the right to free speech or, rather, perhaps I'm not understanding what these folks think the right to free speech gives them in addition to the right to speak without government interference.
I don't believe that these big coorporations would have a leg to stand on it's one thing for private individuals that are giving $100,and not that it doesn't add up after time, because they are just that, private. Meaning that when you chose to be a public figure you lose some of your first ammendment rights. Reporters can write about you if they believe that it was in the intrest of the public. The corporations could try to sue for libel but they wouldn't win if the information was true. So thier best bet would be to not contribute large sums of money in support of things that they don't want anyone to know about because people will talk.
ReplyDeleteAs for the violence and what not like the guy at the end of the artice said there are laws protecting them from that already. However, the people that are opposed to propsition 8 can boycott thier stores if they want to and are within legally boundaries. When you want to represent, through funding, something that is so controversial people can chose if they want to support you and what you stand for anymore or not.