(Supreme) Court skeptical on keeping petitioner IDs private (Wash. Gay Rights Repeal)

[LeighAnn]

Source: Associated Press

Supreme Court justices appeared skeptical Wednesday about keeping secret the names of people who signed a petition to repeal Washington state's gay rights law, suggesting citizens cannot always hide behind anonymity if they want to be heard.

Opponents of gay rights want the court to keep the names private to avoid intimidation by the other side. But several justices questioned whether allowing petitioners to stay anonymous might imperil other vital open records like voter registration and lists of donors to political candidates.

"The fact is that running a democracy takes a certain amount of civic courage," Justice Antonin Scalia said. "And the First Amendment does not protect you from criticism or even nasty phone calls when you exercise your political rights to legislate, or to take part in the legislative process."

The case, which will be decided by the court before the end of the summer, could draw a new line between voters' desire for openness in government and the right to political speech unfettered by fear of intimidation.




Read more: http://www.onenewsnow.com/AP/Search/World/Default.aspx?id=992634

[Toasterlad]

1. Typical Cowardly Bigots.

[elleng]

10. ???

Politics, the Justice went on, “takes a certain amount of civic courage. The First Amendment does not protect you from civic discourse — or even from nasty phone calls.”

[Toasterlad]

11. That's What I'm Saying

I was referring to the people who wanted to legislate hate without being identified.

[elleng]

12. Didn't understand your point of view.

Scalia said it right. He DOES that occasionally!

[maxsolomon]

2. exactly, fat tony.

signing the petition is a public act, and you know it when you do it. stand behind your bigotry when teh gaez come doorbelling to try and change your little pea sized mind.

[TriMera]

3. I live in Washington State.

I don't want to call them or knock on their doors. I just want to know who they are so that I don't shop at their businesses or donate to their causes. I just want to know who I'm dealing with (or not dealing with).

[maxsolomon]

6. i live here too

and i think those people need to be reached out to. not confronted, just presented with an alternative viewpoint - so many of the signatures came from churchgoers who need to be reminded of jesus' message of peace.

[LisaM]

4. In my opinion, if you are trying to get something on the ballot

you are de facto legislating. And we should know who you are.

[AlbertCat]

5. What! Afraid some big hairy leather bears are gonna show up at your door?

"You gotta problem with that?"

[SkyDaddy7]

7. AWESOME!!!

[maxsolomon]

13. that is, in fact, exactly what they're afraid of

if you signed this initiative, it's likely you don't know any gays, except for those you cruelly persecuted when you were in high school. which was probably 40+ years ago.

[naaman fletcher]

8. An interesting note is that Scalia is our champion here, as he is once a year or so.

From scotusblog:

Justice Antonin Scalia, using history, sarcasm and political taunts, laid down a barrage of objections Wednesday to a plea that the Supreme Court create a new constitutional right of anonymity for individuals who sign petitions to get policy measures onto election ballots. When he was finished, the strong impression was that it might be exceedingly hard to gather a five-vote majority to establish such a right, even though the plea got the fervent support of Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr., and some implied help from Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. The oral argument was in John Doe # 1, et al., v. Reed, et al. (09-559).

Declaring that the rough-and-tumble of democracy is not for the faint-hearted, what Scalia referred to as the “touchy, feely” sensitivity of some political activists, the Justice said “you can’t run a democracy” with political activity behind a First Amendment shroud. “You are asking us to enter into a whole new field,” Scalia told James Bopp Jr., the lawyer for Washington State signers of an anti-gay rights petition. Politics, the Justice went on, “takes a certain amount of civic courage. The First Amendment does not protect you from civic discourse — or even from nasty phone calls.”

[SpankMe]

9. Anonymity here is BS.

If you are trying to change the law or have some tangible say in the policies and procedures of public affairs affecting everybody then I don't think you should have a "right" to anonymity. If this were the case, petitioners for all sorts of destructive, weird laws could hurl their turds unrestrained. Full disclosure of the petitioners' identities would have a moderating effect on extreme laws from being proposed.

Those being subject to the power of the state should know who wields that power and from where that power originates. We need to continue to fight for an open and accountable society.

If the court rules in favor of the bigots then this opens the door to a new era of underground law-making which will lead to breaking up the country in little pieces.

As for "...the right to political speech unfettered by fear of intimidation..." - I think that right only exists with regards to the government itself intimidating political speech. If your non-government opponents try to intimidate you, then that's part of the process.