[PAX] Should the names of petition signers be public?

[bamf]

But if you aren't willing to make a public stand for what you believe in, is it really worth fighting for?

Oh I definitely feel that way. My concern is for something like the civil rights era. People were violently oppressed and threatened for advocating civil rights, especially in the American south. While I like to think I'd publicly stand up for what I believe in, not everyone is comfortable in doing so. If they have to choose between publicly voicing their opinion and risk the possibility of being threatened, or not voicing their opinion and staying (relatively) safe, some people would air on the side of caution and simply not sign (not that they are or aren't justified in such an action).

I feel that some good causes have the potential to loose signers out of fear of public backlash, especially if it's something controversial. It would be sad to see a badly needed changed shot down by people too scared of being identified.

While I agree that in an ideal world people would stand up for their beliefs, it sadly isn't so for everyone. I find it even more sad that fear of publicity would keep some badly needed changes from happening.

 

[Barnabas]

Why should they receive special privileges? What puts them in anymore danger than those who support marriage equality? They signed knowing that Washington law stated that their names would be made public, so why now that there is threats of boycotting and protests should they be allowed "privacy rights"?

I don't particulary care if large groups which are organised to push their agenda, what ever it may be are out in the public, but as far as the individual signing a controversial document which could lead to social degredation they should not have to worry about whom will see their decision.

If I was going to sign a document that states that homosexual marriage should not be legaly opposed, that would have social, political and vocatonal backlash in my life. I don't need people looking at that stuff.

 

[Kavalan]

I don't particulary care if large groups which are organised to push their agenda, what ever it may be are out in the public, but as far as the individual signing a controversial document which could lead to social degredation they should not have to worry about whom will see their decision.

If I was going to sign a document that states that homosexual marriage should not be legaly opposed, that would have social, political and vocatonal backlash in my life. I don't need people looking at that stuff.

There exists a quote from a founding father that this gist that their signing has branded them traitors of the crown... I need to go find it...

 

[Eric86]

don't care either way

 

[Satya]

Oh I definitely feel that way. My concern is for something like the civil rights era. People were violently oppressed and threatened for advocating civil rights, especially in the American south. While I like to think I'd publicly stand up for what I believe in, not everyone is comfortable in doing so. If they have to choose between publicly voicing their opinion and risk the possibility of being threatened, or not voicing their opinion and staying (relatively) safe, some people would air on the side of caution and simply not sign (not that they are or aren't justified in such an action).

You realize you are talking about an era in which an oppressed people stood up and walked down the streets against fire hoses, attacking dogs, and police beatings? They didn't win their civil rights by voter referendums. I'm trying to understand the relevance, but I'm not seeing the connection between the two situations.

 

[Kavalan]

bah can't find it... Anyway that it is one of the greatest risked I believe.

 

[bamf]

You realize you are talking about an era in which an oppressed people stood up and walked down the streets against fire hoses, attacking dogs, and police beatings? They didn't win their civil rights by voter referendums. I'm trying to understand the relevance, but I'm not seeing the connection between the two situations.

I understand that it wasn't voter referendums, but what I'm saying is there is a possibility in the future that civil changes and civil unrest similar to said era could be brought to people's attention. If such a thing happened and people brought forth petitions, people could be endangered by their signatures. Voter referendums in the future are a possibility and in such a time, people may not sign if they feel they are physically endangered.

 

[Satya]

I don't particulary care if large groups which are organised to push their agenda, what ever it may be are out in the public, but as far as the individual signing a controversial document which could lead to social degredation they should not have to worry about whom will see their decision.

If I was going to sign a document that states that homosexual marriage should not be legaly opposed, that would have social, political and vocatonal backlash in my life. I don't need people looking at that stuff.

Then why would you sign it? It seems to me that you want your cake and to eat it too. You want the ability to sign on to controversial issues which could have profound impacts on other people's lives and what rights they have, but you don't want it to have any possible repercussions for you in doing so. That isn't how this country has historically worked. When the founding fathers signed the Declaration of Independence, they were effectively condemning themselves to death if America lost the war for independence against Britain. And now you are telling me that you want the power to sign on to issues which could have sweeping consequences for other people, but only if you can ensure your own privacy in doing so? How is that really any different than taking shots at people from behind a fence?

 

[Satya]

I understand that it wasn't voter referendums, but what I'm saying is there is a possibility in the future that civil changes and civil unrest similar to said era could be brought to people's attention. If such a thing happened and people brought forth petitions, people could be endangered by their signatures. Voter referendums in the future are a possibility and in such a time, people may not sign if they feel they are physically endangered.

So let me get this straight...people should have the right to privacy when signing petitions that could have sweeping social consequences...because they could potentially be physically endangered? That doesn't make any sense to me. You are basically saying that extremists who might resort to violence are more important than a free and open democratic process. By the same logic, people shouldn't put there name in the phone book because one crazy guy out there might pick it and come kill you.

 

[Barnabas]

So let me get this straight...people should have the right to privacy when signing petitions that could have sweeping social consequences...because they could potentially be physically endangered? That doesn't make any sense to me. You are basically saying that extremists who might resort to violence are more important than a free and open democratic process. By the same logic, people shouldn't put there name in the phone book because one crazy guy out there might pick it and come kill you.

I can't possibly see how you can link a number in the phone book and one crazy person to, a highly controversial law with many socially violent supporters.

 

[bamf]

So let me get this straight...people should have the right to privacy when signing petitions that could have sweeping social consequences...because they could potentially be physically endangered? That doesn't make any sense to me. You are basically saying that extremists who might resort to violence are more important than a free and open democratic process. By the same logic, people shouldn't put there name in the phone book because one crazy guy out there might pick it and come kill you.

Well I don't know how else to put it. It protects individuals much the same way voting is done privately. I'm sorry you don't agree but lucky for you I'm not the one making the rules.

If you want to try to grasp where I'm coming from, imagine if people had petitioned during the civil rights era. Would a white southerner who supported civil rights always sign a petition if their name was made public? I doubt it. If civil rights would have only been up for vote after public petitioning, would they ever have made it to the ballot if people were fearful of outcomes for voicing their opinion? Maybe, maybe not. My point is it would be a shame if, theoretically speaking, people didn't sign much needed petitions due to fear of harassment or harm.

Also, if for some reason we're going to extrapolate this to phone books, you have the option to remove your number and address from public listings.

 

[Satya]

I can't possibly see how you can link a number in the phone book and one crazy person to, a highly controversial law with many socially violent supporters.

With many socially violent supporters? Care to back that up with some evidence? I'm not talking about graffiti or knocking a cross out of an old lady's hand, I'm talking about one case where someone has actually been physically harmed as a result of being against marriage equality. Surely if there are "many" you can provide at least one. Frankly, I find the insinuation insulting.

-Edited for apparent misunderstanding.

 

[Satya]

Well I don't know how else to put it. It protects individuals much the same way voting is done privately. I'm sorry you don't agree but lucky for you I'm not the one making the rules.

If you want to try to grasp where I'm coming from, imagine if people had petitioned during the civil rights era. Would a white southerner who supported civil rights always sign a petition if their name was made public? I doubt it. If civil rights would have only been up for vote after public petitioning, would they ever have made it to the ballot if people were fearful of outcomes for voicing their opinion? Maybe, maybe not. My point is it would be a shame if, theoretically speaking, people didn't sign much needed petitions due to fear of harassment or harm.

Also, if for some reason we're going to extrapolate this to phone books, you have the option to remove your number and address from public listings.

I'll guess we will have to agree to disagree on that. In this particular situation, I think it is unwarranted. Knowing full well that petition signatures were public domain, and still choosing to sign does not mean you can suddenly decide you want to hide your name once you realize there could be repercussions.

 

[Barnabas]

With many socially violent supporters? Care to back that up with some evidence? I'm not talking about graffiti or knocking a cross out of an old lady's hand, I'm talking about one case where someone has actually been physically harmed as a result of being against marriage equality. Surely if there are "many" you can provide at least one. Frankly, I find the insinuation insulting.

how many days ago was there a thread posted on the fact that a women lost her place in the church due to the fact that she supported gay marriage. thats's what i'm talking about. she could have supported the cause without the church knowing. but instead this idea puts targets on the backs of people like her.

as for shooting behind the fence, thats just good tactics*insert sracasm*

social violence does not equal physical violence.

 

[Moxie]

I haven't posted because I don't know my thoughts on this.

On the one hand I really think that if you believe in something strongly enough to sign a statement saying you believe in it, kind of makes sense to me that it is public.

On the other hand, I totally get what MF was saying. If Jews in Nazi Germany signed a petition saying they didn't like the direction the government was going, their names would just have been collected.

And in the US, petition names have been collected to hurt people - like in the McCarthy era where people were severely punished for signing Pro-communist petitions - even if it had been in their youth.

So, I'm more strongly in favor of the first one, so don't put your name on it if you're not afraid of it getting back to haunt you, but if you've done it, then live with the consequences, but still... I see both sides.

The first petition I ever signed was a Pro-communist one btw, just to see if anything would happen. I got called Comrade every time I walked by those people - hahahaha!

 

[Satya]

how many days ago was there a thread posted on the fact that a women lost her place in the church due to the fact that she supported gay marriage. thats's what i'm talking about. she could have supported the cause without the church knowing. but instead this idea puts targets on the backs of people like her.

as for shooting behind the fence, thats just good tactics*insert sracasm*

social violence does not equal physical violence.

Oh, you did a good job pissing me off with that statement too.

I would not call a woman losing her job an act of violence, even if you qualify it as "social". From a sociological perspective you weren't using the correct definition of the term....

Social violence: violence occurring as a result of social relationships within and between groups of people.

 

[Barnabas]

Oh, you did a good job pissing me off with that statement too.

I would not call a woman losing her job an act of violence, even if you qualify it as "social". From a sociological perspective you weren't using the correct definition of the term....

Social violence: violence occurring as a result of social relationships within and between groups of people.

fine let's change the term, she lost her job due to her political view. can't mistake or misread that one.

 

[Kavalan]

I'm going on a limb here I guess and saying that signing ones name to anything will/may have repercussions later on. The fact that that women lost her job due to her political stance was a choice she made and she should have known the consequences of her acts.

As I said before if the cause means so much to you, the outcome justifies all the hardships one has incurred getting there.

 

[sassafras]

Ever the fence-sitter, I see the issue from both perspectives. I totally agree with Satya in that if a person feels strongly enough about an issue, they should, ideally, stand staunchly behind it, regardless of the social repercussions.

But on the other hand, I also understand why petitioners' privacy should be protected.

For arguments sake, let's say that the present circumstances surrounding the gay marriage issue were different. Say that it wasn't at all as socially acceptable to be openly gay to the degree that it is today (compared to twenty, or thirty years ago, for instance). If people were asked to sign a petition in favor of gay marriage knowing that their names would be released and that the social risks would include boycotting their business (and thus, for some their very livelihood), how many of them would be willing to step up to the plate? I would hazard to guess less than a quarter of the actual supporters. But if that petition were to remain anonymous, the same petition might be more representative of the true opinion of the populace and possibly help bring that hypothetical situation closer to reform.

And that to me is probably the biggest argument for keeping petition anonymity. You want to give people every opportunity to express their actual opinions; some of them are going to be bold and say it loud, say it proud. Other people have some strings attached that are going to prevent them from making a public contribution, but at least they'll get their voice in an anonymous poll. If people feel threatened to say what's on their mind because of social control, formal or informal, that brings to mind some very uncomfortable associations.

Edit: Heh. I just realized MF was kind of going down a similar road there...

 

[Satya]

It doesn't really change my perspective. I would stand up for same sex marriage regardless of how favorable the environment was towards homosexuality and I would not be afraid to put my name on it where anyone could see it. If that resulted in consequences for me then I could learn to live with them, but it just seems so cowardly to me to hide behind a veal of anonymity if you really believe in what you are pushing.