Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Katelew who wrote (112018)	5/27/2009 11:52:49 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 541598

I was shocked and then later surprised that this amazing invasion of privacy was in fact legal..... There's a difference between illegal and questionable practice. especially considering that our individual vote, i.e. the secret ballot, is legally protected. If what was published was people's votes, I would think you'd have a case. But "outing" people for their beliefs and activities is a time-honored albeit tacky practice.

To: Katelew who wrote (112018)	5/28/2009 4:44:04 PM
From: Cogito	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 541598

>>At the time, I was shocked and then later surprised that this amazing invasion of privacy was in fact legal.....especially considering that our individual vote, i.e. the secret ballot, is legally protected.<< Kate - Secret ballots are one thing. Secret campaign contributions are quite another, and can easily undermine Democracy. So I see nothing wrong with the fact that information about who contributed to either side of the Prop 8 measure is freely available. Having said that, I still believe that publishing the names of people who contributed to its passage on a website is a questionable act. If the idea is to promote retribution, it's reprehensible. >>I'm left with the impression that these websites are/were viewed by the collective liberal community as a form of just retribution.<< As you said, these sites got very little coverage in the Press. I doubt that many liberals are aware of them, so I wouldn't assume that there is general approval. It's also worth considering that if these sites were publicized widely, that might put the people whose names appear on them in jeopardy. One other thought about the Mormon Church and its involvement in the gay marriage debate. It occurs to me that the Mormons can't legitimately use the argument that marriage has always traditionally been defined as being between one man and one woman, or that there is some religious imperative in keeping it that way. I don't know if they do use that argument, but given the history of the official sanction of polygamy in the Church, they don't have the standing to use it. - Allen