Gay Rights Group Planning to Publicly Out Signers of Referendum Petition

The Spokane Spokesman reports:

Petitions were being printed Tuesday for Referendum 71, which asks Washington voters to overturn a new law granting same-sex domestic partners many of the rights of spouses.

But those who sign the petitions may be in for a surprise. Some R-71 opponents have put up a Web site -- www.whosigned.org -- where they intend to post the names of all the required 120,577 signers.

Washington law apparently makes the names of petition signers publicly available, and if that's so then those who disagree with the petition certainly have a First Amendment right to publicize those names. To be sure, such public identification of people's political actions can deter people from exercising their political rights, and might even be intended to have that effect. (But the use of speech to pressure people through threat of social ostracism is constitutionally protected. And this is so even if the speech may have the effect of stimulating illegal discrimination against people — Washington law prohibits employers from discriminating against employees based on their political activities — and conceivably even violence.

(The site organizers are quoted as saying that "We think that it will help neighbors talk to each other," and the site also says that the publicity can help people verify the accuracy of the petitions. But I'm pretty sure that these won't be the main effects of the site's operation, and I suspect that they weren't the sole reasons for the site to be put up.)

Yet the rise in such outing tactics — especially now that people can use the Internet to easily turn formally public records that are practically inaccessible into records that are truly available to everyone in seconds — raises the question of just what records the government should make public, especially in unrestricted ways. Even if the government wants to let challengers check the validity of petition signatures, it can do so in ways that reveal less information, for instance by revealing only small but statistically valid samples, or (possibly) by requiring people who access the information to promise not to redistribute it (see, e.g., Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart, upholding such a protective order as to information released for purposes of litigation).

So my questions: Should referendum, initiative, recall, and candidate nomination signatures be treated more like voters' ballots, which are expected to be kept secret? Or should they be treated more like legislators' votes for proposed bills, which are expected to be made public? For that matter, how should we treat other political information, such as voters' party registration and the record of people's large campaign contributions, which is generally made public now? And what should be our ethical judgment about people's publicizing others' low-level political activity of this sort?

Comments

[nylibgrrl]

Unfortunately most here are only looking at the issue in the context of _this specific petition_ and not the general case. I understand why you'd want these bigots outed and I agree that gays are unlikely to physically attack anyone over this, but let's turn it around. In the case of any petition signed in favor of a liberal cause, there'd be a very real chance of some hate group or a lone nutter making a "hit list" from the information or sending threatening snail or e-mails--or have we already forgotten the recent episodes of right-wing extremists committing acts of violence?

Plus, it's hard enough to try to hold on to any privacy in the digital age as it is. Personally, I cling to every scrap of it that I can, just on principle. I'm just not the sort of person who wants to be all over all the social networks, blogs, YouTube, etc., but I guess I'm a rarity these days. :)

I guess it would depend on just how much of the personal information is displayed. I have signed internet petitions where there was an option to be shown as anonymous on a public list and chosen that option because I just think it's generally nobody else's business but that of the organization and the officials the petition is being sent to.

Just my 5 cents (inflation :) )

[adoantarel]

The signature process is not regulated to nearly the degree that voting is, so I have to say that keeping it public is a good safety measure. Thus, other groups can check the signatures for validity.

[adoantarel]

A petition is a gray area, but donations should be public. Everyone has one vote and has the ability to sign a petition. That is equal among all. Money is not equally distributed, and thus we should be able to track where contributions go.

[TryToBeFlexible]

Yeah, the big brave straights who abuse gays and keep them terrified in the closet, fire them, etc. are just horrified that their nastiness will be displayed on the internet.

If you so believe in your "cause" that you are willing to sign the petition to strip human rights from fellow citizens, then you should be brave enough for you name to be displayed.

What a bunch of cowards. I guess, when you are in a group of drunks and beat up on lone gay guys, you are being really brave.

[DaveinNorthridge]

If you're embarrassed to sign something which shows that you're a bigot, then maybe you shouldn't sign it? The closet isn't only for GLBT people, after all.

[thebigbike]

"might conceivably... even stimulate violence" when was the last time you heard of a gay gang attakcing straight people for being straight....as far as that goes an attack even for agitating to limit gay people to second class citizenship? Hmmmmm??????

[pfrogger]

oh ya?
I heard of a gay gang attacking a woman ... oh wait they were straight, and they were attacking a gay woman.
But I heard of this situation where a gay gang was verbally abusing people who dressed funny ... oh wait, that was actually a bunch of straight people verbally abusing gay people.

Now that I think about it, I can't really think of violence committed by gays on straight people. But I can think of numerous situations where uneducated, ignorant, immature, knuckle-dragging straight people have caused verbal, psychological, and physical abuse and assault on gay people. And I've never heard of gay people call straight people "abominations", or immoral, or that straight people will burn in hell for eternity for their lifestyle. And yet bigotry is not only tolerated and condoned by some straight people, in some cases it's actively advocated for. And that bigoted point of view is actually considered a normal perspective. I can't imagine if a large group of people actually condemned my lifestyle as an "abomination", evil, or that I'll burn in hell for all eternity.
Some straight people are very scary.

[GreyWolfSC]

If you're petitioning the government for something that will affect all citizens then all of the information about the petition including its supporters should be available to all citizens.

[Disdain]

Exactly how much information are we talking about publicizing? Is this just name or actual address? If you are going to be putting out personal info, who is responsible if some yahoo decide to exercise it's own brand of justice and attacks one of them?

[kissmygrits]

Public. Out the bigots.

[jcwtts1]

Publish them, link to them, set up google earth to show demographically where they live. There is no reason that your signing of a petition, a public act, shouldn't be public for everyone to see. Look, you have to stand by your speech. You can't just do something like this and hide in the shadows. Either sign and stand up and defend your position, or don't sign and harbor your feelings in private. actions have consequences. Bring it on.

J

[jpopphan]

Petitions should definitely be public and not considered like a vote. Those who fear having their views seen by others should carefully consider whether or not to support the petition.

Those who benefit from gay dollars yet oppose full equality for gays and lesbians should be exposed.

[joemondo]

Bravo.

I want to know who is moving to remove my rights, so I can be sure to not give them my business.

[PlainJayne]

if they want to be hateful and bigoted they should stand up for what they believe and quit hiding behind their bibles and whatnot. They are signing something to take somebody elses rights away, so why should they have a right to privacy in this instance? It should be made public.

[S1m0n]

There is no such thing as a private petition. The fact that they are public is a key -- in fact, one of the defining -- features of all petitions. Signing one is a public declaration of support for a cause.

[weatherwaxx]

This is not something that should be kept secret.

In Ohio,2004, the anti-gay-marriage petition was put on the ballot by pay-per-signature workers. Petitions were left unattended in bars, passed around at public events (I know; I was approached more than once) with a "oh, it's just to get it on the ballot, it protects child-support..."

Yes. MAKE IT PUBLIC. Not only can people check to make sure their names were not added without their knowledge (which also happened in Ohio, under Ken Blackwell's vote-fraud scheme) it will make people THINK about what they are supporting.

If somebody's afraid of losing income from gay customers and supporters of equality ... well, that's fine in my book. I won't give my money to bigots if I can help it.