Would You Post Private Information About Your Political "Enemies"?

[arwalden]

Poll question: Would You Post Private Information About Your Political "Enemies"?

You know... phone numbers, email, birth dates, address, relatives names, etc etc?

I'm not talking about as "revenge" for something they actually did *to* you, but as a "tactic" for intimidation the way Michelle Malkin is doing?

Has she lowered the bar? Is this now a valid way to harass one's political opponents?

[porphyrian]

1. That depends on the nature of the enemy and of our fight. - n/t

[sui generis]

14. I'll have to agree to this

For instance: what if that person was Michelle Malkin and your name was next on her death list?

That's extreme, but hopefully the ones on our side are NOT hate-driven psychotic spell-check challenged inbred morons like on their side.

Another for instance:

If someone in my district signs a petition that says it's okay to burn pink triangles on my lawn as an expression of freedom of speech, I damn sure want to know who they are and where they live.

[niyad]

2. if they are politicians, that information is available anyway, isn't it?

or at least, it SHOULD BE.

[WildEyedLiberal]

3. I wouldn't do anything that I couldn't handle being done to me in return

That includes lying and fabricating scandals as well as sleazy below-the-belt intimidation tactics.

Although really, who needs to lie about Repukes? The truth about them is certainly as odious as any lie I could invent.

[Sinti]

4. Hell no, imagine the weight on your conscience if some psycho

went out and killed one of them, and found them via your info. This is beneath any rational human.

[Selatius]

5. There are legal questions we're getting into here.

A public official has fewer expectations with respect to privacy, but I do believe it's false to say public officials have absolutely no right to privacy.

[arwalden]

10. Assume it's NON public officials... just some protesters, or...

... folks who gather petition signatures... door-to-door electioneering canvassers... that sort of thing.

[Selatius]

17. Then the question becomes even more relevant, and I'd say...

that would be violating privacy laws.

[Solo_in_MD]

21. What if it were already published by the people themselves

and is available from mulitple sources? That is the what happened in this case.

[arwalden]

23. My Phone Number Is Also Listed...

... does that make it right for you to publish it on your political blog and either directly or indirectly instruct people to harass me?

[Mabus]

20. As I understand it, in the most recent Malkin incident

Malkin posted contact information that looks to be a scanned copy of a press release. The RW will say, "If it is a scanned copy of an actual press release wouldn't there be a lowered expectation of privacy if the people allowed their names to be distributed?" In other words, by putting their names down as contacts for this group they gave up their right to privacy in connection with this matter.

I don't think what Malkin did is something I would do. I believe she did it with the intent to rally the base to harass people. This isn't wasn't the purpose of putting out contact information. In my view, the context in which she posted the information was not in furtherance of the group or its message (the purpose of the press release). Instead I think she published the contact information to encourage her readers to harass and/or disrupt the group's activities. This is more like an agency relationship ala Berhanu v. Metzger

In 1988, Tom and John Metzger sent their best White Aryan Resistance (WAR) recruiter to organize a Portland Skinhead gang. After being trained in WAR's methods, the gang killed an Ethiopian student. Tom Metzger praised the Skinheads for doing their "civic duty."

Center attorneys filed a civil suit, Berhanu v. Metzger, asserting the Metzgers and WAR were as responsible for the killing as the Portland Skinheads. In October 1990, a jury agreed and awarded $12.5 million in damages to the family of the victim, Mulugeta Seraw.

In 1994, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to review Metzger's appeal, allowing Center attorneys to begin distributing funds from the sale of WAR's assets. The principal beneficiary is Seraw's son, Henok, who receives monthly payments from WAR's bank account. http://www.splcenter.org/legal/docket/files.jsp?cdrID=11

She instructs her minions what to do and they do it.

[havocmom]

6. Nope, but I sure as hell have suggested ways folks can look it up

...just doin my part to help the population realize there are resources they can use to hold people accountable for their actions. They don't have to just sit there and take it.

:evilgrin:

[Book Lover]

7. I voted "Yes" but I really mean "It Depends"

I took that kind of action with ActUP in the 80's and 90's, but would not do it against, say, someone I disagreed over taxes with.

[napi21]

8. I voted YES, but let me qualify it by saying I wouldn't do it

initially, but as a way to fight back against tactics like spreading false rumors about me (or the candidate I was supporting)! You see, I would have gladly posted the names, addresses, phone numbers etc. of the AH's that were spreading sh*T about Dean, Kerry, Clealand, etc. and I wouldn't have had one speck of guilt!

[EFerrari]

9. No and hell, no. She's scum. n/t

[Swamp Rat]

11. Before Katrina I would have answered 'NO'

Now it's NO HOLDS BARRED! :mad:

[sam sarrha]

12. can't answer.. i haven't seen good information any yet.

[Fleshdancer]

13. No. Silencing political opinion is un-American

Malkin's insane decision to give the personal info of people who she happens to disagree with is also potentially life threatening. While she may think it's funny, she may very well be giving a nut case fan the opportunity to hurt these people...it only takes one nut. She might want to hire a lawyer just in case her actions lead to something more serious than just harassment.

[blondeatlast]

15. Absolutely not. If I couldn't tolerate it being done to me,

there is no way I would respond in kind or out of kind, even to my worst enemy--who may well be the person referenced in the OP.

[SPKrazy]

16. No I Wouldn't

but apparently the protestors listed their names and phone and e-mail addys
and she (wrongly I believe) posted that on her site

[guinivere]

18. No, I wouldn't. Do unto others, and all that. nt

[Solo_in_MD]

19. However, she only republished their press release

Which contained names/email/phone (presumptively cell) numbers. Not home address, children's' names, SSN or other more sensitive data. DK posters are divided on this as are some here.

Yes its wrong to dig out someones information and post it, but she did not do that in this case. When I looked a few days ago, Malkin was not the only one who had published it, Indy Media still had it up as well.

Finally it looks like vengeance has been taken upon her already in at least equal measure from what I have seen on blogs and elsewhere.

[Llewlladdwr]

22. Moot question at this point.

By responding in kind the Left has legitimized this as a tactic. Like it or not the game is on.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

25. The game was on whenm the RIGHT used it FIRST.

As they say, no more Mr. Nice Guy. The retaliation may dissuade other mouth-foaming RW media whores from pulling the same stunt.

It's like Prisoner's Dilemma. The best tactic is always (1) Start by being nice, and (2) Stop being nice if the other side stops being nice.

[Monkey see Monkey Do]

24. Christian Voice did this in the UK last year over "Jerry Springer:

The Opera" by publishing the name and address of BBC executives to try and intimidate them into pulling it from airing. Death threats were received and they were given security guards which is such a ridiculous state of affairs.