Slashdot Mirror


Legal War For WA State Sunshine Law

joeszilagyi writes "In a major battle in Washington State, anti-gay rights groups created and got R-71 on the 2009 election ballot. This is a public initiative to put same-sex civil unions up for public vote. The real legal war then erupted: activists created WhoSigned.org to take advantage of WA state's Public Records Act, and put the names of all people who publicly endorsed R-71 on a public, SEO-optimized website. Lawsuits quickly followed, and today it reached the United States Supreme Court, in a matter of months. The records appear to have always been public, but have only been available in digital form since 2006. An assault on civil rights, an assault on marriage, or an assault on sunshine laws and freedom of information?"

2 of 1,364 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Sick of the anti-gay groups by natehoy · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    "grammatically in correct" is, well, grammatically incorrect. :)

    --
    "This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
  2. My vote, my business by onyxruby · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    This is an appalling attempt at intimidation and coercion of those who would vote a given way. The public has a right to vote any damn way they want, and it has long been precedent that it was no one's business. I'm married, should I somehow be able to demand to know how my wife voted? Of course not, it's not my business, it's hers and hers alone. Similar stunts in the past have cost people vandalism to their home, their jobs, and their businesses. Your vote should be yours alone and not subject to public intimidation. It's your right, it shouldn't cost you to exercise it.

    This is not about how your public representatives voted - public representatives who represent the public should have their votes known. This is a thinly veiled attempt at public coercion of those who don't want to vote a certain way on a certain public issue. The fact that you may happen to agree with the view of those who are pulling this stunt should be put aside. What if it was a conservative state and such a stunt was pulled? All of a sudden your in an area that doesn't approve of your vote and you get to be the one who is harassed by nutcases in the public.

    A vocal minority should never be allowed to control the population, regardless of cause or locality. That's the entire point of putting something like this on a ballot, to show if a certain issue is getting coverage simply because of a vocal minority or media bias, or if that's the way the public really feels. The ballot allows the vocal minority to be exposed and for the public to speak it's will. For example look at approvals for medical marijuana in places like California.

    People need to learn that a vocal minority is just that regardless of the issue and not let such people unduly intimidate the public at large. The issue the vocal minority supports shouldn't matter, it might be one you agree with this time but could just as easily be one you disagree with next time.