[EL] Doe v. Reed, more news

[JBoppjr at aol.com]

Not "criticism," but serious acts of harassment.  See following  summary in 
our brief:
 
 The evidence of intimidation and retaliation in this case is more  than 
sufficient to warrant granting an exposure exemption. It is as sobering as  it 
is extensive. There have been death threats (e.g., Ex. 1-3, at 18:9–10);  
physical assaults and threats of violence (e.g., Ex. 4-23; Ex. 1-8, at  16:18–
19:24); vandalism and threats of destruction of property (e.g., Exs. 4-49;  
4-195); arson and threats of arson (e.g., Exs. 4-83; 4-86); angry protests  
(e.g., Exs. 4-58, 4-73); lewd and perverse demonstrations (e.g., Ex. 1-8, 
at  22:24–24:14); intimidating emails and phone calls (e.g., Compl. Ex. 1, p. 
10  (Dkt. 2-4); Ex. 1-11, at 58:19–59:5); hate mail (the old-fashioned 
kind) (e.g.,  Ex. 4 to Ex. 1-7); mailed envelopes containing white suspicious 
powder (e.g.,  Ex. 4-75); multiple web sites dedicated to blacklisting those 
who support  traditional marriage and similar causes (e.g., Exs. 4-164; 
4-190); loss of  employment and job opportunities (e.g., Ex. 2 ¶¶ 36–44; Ex. 
4-107); intimidation  and reprisals on campus and in the classroom (e.g., Exs. 
4-100; 4-110); acts of  intimidation through photography (e.g., Decl. of John 
Doe #5 in Supp. of Pls.’  Mot. for Prelim. Inj. ¶¶ 9–10 (Dkt. 54)); 
economic reprisals and demands for  “hush money”(e.g., Ex. 4-58); and gross 
expressions of anti-religious bigotry,  including vandalism and threats directed 
at religious institutions and religious  adherents (e.g., Exs. 4-7; 4-84). 
There is also ample evidence that protected  speech and association has been 
chilled because of the prospect of reprisals.  (E.g., Ex. 1-1, at  48:5–9, 
56:16–23.)
The evidence is too  voluminous to discuss in any detail in this brief. 
Even a brief overview,  however, gives insight to the gravity and the scale of 
what the Los Angeles  Times called the “vengeful campaign” against 
supporters of traditional marriage.  The following real threats were directed at 
traditional-marriage  supporters:
“I will kill you and your family.” (Ex. 1-3, at  18:9–10.)
“Oh my God, this woman is so fucking stupid. Someone please  shoot her in 
the head, again and again. And again.” (Exs. 1-3, at 54:3–7;  4-188.)

I’m going to kill the pastor. (Ex. 1-13, at  24:24–25:6, 26:8–11.)
“If I had a gun I would have gunned you down  along with each and every 
other supporter. . . .” (Exs. 4-2, 4-3,  4-4.)

“Keep letting [the pastor] preach hate and he’ll  be sorry.” (Exs. 4-2, 
4-3, 4-4.)
“We’re going to kill you.” (Ex.  5-2.)
“You’re dead. Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but soon...  you’re 
dead.” (Ex. 4-12.)
 
 “I’m a gay guy who owns guns, and he’s my next target.” (Ex.  4-12.)
“You better stay off the olympic peninsula. . it’s a very  dangerous place 
filled with people who hate racists, gay bashers and anyone who  doesn't 
believe in equality. fair is fair.” (Compl., Ex. 1, at  10.)

“If Larry Stickney can do ‘legal’ things that harm  OUR family, why can’t 
we go to Arlington WA to harm his family?” (Ex. 4-189.)  

“I advocate using violence against the property of ALL  of those who are 
working tirelessly to HURT my family; starting with churches  and government 
property. Government is enabling a vote on whether or not I  ‘should be 
allowed’ to see my husband while he is dying in the hospital—any  NORMAL man 
would be driven to get a gun and kill those who tried such evil  cruelty 
against his loved ones.” (Ex. 4-195.)

“I wanna  fight you. I wanna fight you right now.” (Ex. 1-11, at 58:19–
59:5.)
“I  warn you, I know how to kill, I’m an ex-special forces person.” (Ex. 
1-11, at  86:21–87:1, 90:10–11.)
 
 “Throw Rocks Here” (sign with arrow pointing to pastor’s head) (Exs.  
4-20, 4-21.)
“You guys deserve to die” (uttered during a physical  attack) (Ex. 1-8, at 
19:5–6, 19:19–24.)
“I’ll bust your cap.” (Ex. 1-8,  at 31:6–15.)
“You’re on my block now, bro. [If] you guys don’t leave  within 20 
minutes, there’s gonna be some problems. . . . I’m telling you right  now, 20 
minutes.” (Ex. 5-9.)

“[I’ll] see  you in my trunk.” (Ex. 5-9.)
“I’m going to give them something to be  f--ing scared of....I’m a radical 
who is now on a mission to make them all pay  for what they’ve done.” (Ex. 
4-56.)

“I tolerate you  because I don’t come to where you are and slaughter you.” 
(Bieniek Decl. Ex. 13,  p. 122 (John Doe #30) (Dkt. 4-14).)
 
 “STUPID MOTHER FUCKER. MAKE A DONATION Like that AND YOU ARE LISTED.”  
(Bieniek Decl. Ex. 13, p. 240 (John Doe #54) (Dkt. 4-14).)
 
 “YOU LOST!!!!!!! Hahahahahahahahahaha Get ready for retribution all  you 
bigots!!!!!!” (email sent within hours of Supreme Court’s decision in Doe v. 
 Reed) (Ex. 3-1, at 13.)
 
 There is also significant evidence of actual violence and vandalism,  
including, among other things, physical assaults (e.g., Ex. 4-99), keyed cars  
(e.g., Bieniek Decl. Ex. 13, p. 10 (John Doe #12)), spray-painted homes and  
buildings (e.g., Exs. 4-38, 4-41), slashed tires (e.g., Ex. 4-91), stolen 
and  mangled signs (e.g., Ex. 1-3, at 35:15–22; Ex. 1-11, at 105:8–17), and 
smashed  windows in cars, homes, and other structures (e.g., Exs. 4-7, 4-34; 
Bieniek  Decl. Ex. 13, p. 7 (John Doe #11)). Such acts seemed to convey 
implicitly the  same message made explicit to one traditional-marriage supporter
—“You should  really be ashamed of yourselves; get the fuck out of our town.”
 (Ex.  5-9.)
In addition, displays of anti-religious bigotry carried an overt  tone of 
violence and hatred:
“You conservative Christians are fucking  poison.” (Ex. 5-9.)
“Can someone in CA please go burn down the Mormon  temples there, PLEASE. I 
mean seriously. DO IT.” (Ex.  4-56.)

“Burn their f--ing churches to the ground, and  then tax the charred timbers
” (Ex. 4-56.)
 
 “Fuck you Mormons. Yeah you heard me. Fuck you. Fuck you and your  narrow 
minded hypocritical asses. Fuck you for putting money into taking away a  
persons right. . . .” (Ex. 4-55.)

“As far as mormons  and catholics...I warn them to watch their backs.” 
(Ex. 4-56.)
“Oh  Mormons, go fuck yourselves!” (sung to cheering crowds at same-sex 
marriage  demonstrations) (Ex. 5-17, 5-19.)

“The Mormon church (just  like most churches) is a cesspool of filth. It is 
a breeding ground for  oppression of all sorts and needs to be confronted, 
attacked, subverted and  destroyed.” (Exs. 4-34, 4-82.)

“I fully support  violence against churches who are politically-active as 
anti-gay . . . .” (Ex.  4-84.)
 
 The vitriol of these threats was reflected in word and in deed.  Churches 
had graffiti scrawled across their walls and artwork (e.g., Ex. 4-47;  
Bieniek Decl. Ex. 13, p. 58, ¶ 7 (John Doe #23) (Dkt. 4-14)), swastikas left on  
lawns and walls (e.g., Exs. 4-45; 4-50), bricks thrown through their windows 
and  glass doors (e.g., Ex. 4-91), adhesive poured in their locks (e.g., 
Ex. 4-7),  suspicious packages filled with white powder mailed to their 
sanctuaries (e.g.,  Ex. 4-78), and calls for the revocation of their tax-exempt 
status (e.g., Ex.  3-1, at 26–27; Ex. 4-179)—all for doing nothing more than 
supporting traditional  marriage. In one case, a sacred text was burned on 
the front steps of a church  (Ex. 4-80), and in another case, a militant 
homosexual group took over a church  service while it was in progress, while two 
women kissed each other near the  podium (Ex. 4-53).
On two occasions, both in Washington state, a group  called Bash Back! 
boldly accepted credit for vandalizing houses of worship,  writing, in one case, 
“When we [graffitied your walls] and glued all the doors  shut, we threw 
open our own doors and tattooed those words on hour [sic] hearts.  Welcome to 
our world shitheads. We may have written on your walls, but you’ve  written 
anti-queer rhetoric into law.” (Ex. 4-42.) And in the other case, “Last  
night, under the veil of fog, we visited the Church of Latter Day Saints. We  
left their locks glued with anarchist messages scrawled in spray paint over  
their boring veneer. . . . Let this be a warning to the Mormon church, 
dissolve  completely or be destroyed. The choice is yours.” (Exs. 4-34,  4-82.)
When some activists could sense that intimidation was not  working (i.e., 
supporters were courageous enough to speak despite the threats  and 
reprisals), they resorted to threatening the families—even the children—of  
supporters. In one case, the perpetrator threatened to “kill” the supporter’s  
child and the whole family (Ex. 1-3, at 18:9–10); in another, to “harm” the  
supporter’s family (Ex. 4-189); and in another, to rape the supporters’ 
daughter  (Ex. 4-10). And in many cases, activists lashed out, promising 
emotional harm to  supporters’ children by threatening to convert them to 
homosexuality. (E.g., Ex.  1-9, at 11:25–12:20.) One angry man wrote, “If you were 
afraid that your kids  learning about homosexuals would corrupt them, you have 
no IDEA what I’m going  to do to them.” (Ex. 4-55.) And there is evidence 
of at least one physical  assault against the thirteen-year-old child of a 
prominent supporter. (Ex. 1-3,  41:23–43:19.)
Countless are the examples of harassing and intimidating  emails, phone 
calls, and Internet blog comments. (See generally, e.g., Ex. 3-1;  Bieniek 
Decl. Exs. 12, 13 (Dkts. 4-13, 4-14).) In one case, typical of so many  others, 
a man who supported traditional marriage wrote a letter to the editor  
pleading, “Please show respect for democracy.” “What he encountered instead was  
an utter lack of respect for free speech.” Indeed, the backlash he received 
was  so stunning that it prompted a journalist from the San Francisco 
Chronicle to  write his own piece entitled “The Ugly Backlash over Proposition 8.”
 The  journalist, who emphasized his unwavering support for same-sex 
marriage, related  what had happened in the wake of this man’s letter to the  
editor:
Within hours, the intimidation game was on. Because his  real name and city 
were listed—a condition for publication of letters to The  Chronicle—
opponents of Prop. 8 used Internet search engines to find the letter  writer’s 
small business, his Web site (which included the names of his children  and 
dog), his phone number and his clients. And they posted that information in  
the “Comments” section of SFGate.com—urging, in ugly language, retribution  
against the author’s business and its identified  clients.
“They’re intimidating people that don’t have the same  beliefs as they do 
. . . so they’ll be silenced,” he told me last week. “It  doesn’t bode 
well for the free-speech process. People are going to have to be  pretty damn 
courageous to speak up about anything. Why would anyone want to go  through 
this?”
 
 The journalist was “disturbed by the vicious, highly personalized  attacks 
against the letter writer and others.” “This out-of-scale attempt to  
isolate and intimidate decidedly small players is no way to win the issue in a  
court of law or the court of public opinion,” and “[e]qually disappointing 
is  the lack of a forceful denunciation from leaders of the honorable cause 
of  bringing marriage equality to California.” The journalist ended where he 
had  begun—by reminding his readers that what is at issue here, and what is 
 endangered here, is the First Amendment freedom of speech: “Intimidation,  
through attempts to chill free speech . . . should have no part in this 
debate,”  and “leaders on both sides should have the honesty to recognize it . 
. . and the  courage to condemn it.”
 
Jim Bopp
 
 
In a message dated 10/17/2011 6:31:31 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
bev at blackboxvoting.org writes:

It seems  to me that Mr. Bopp is making the argument that to have the right 
to 
free  speech you must be able to exercise that right without criticism.

By  reframing the concept of criticism as "harassment" without defining  
when
criticism -- also a free speech right -- crosses the line to become  
harassment,
the whole issue is rather cleverly framed. Shifting the focus  obscures the
simple fact that we have the right to criticize anyone we  disagree with, 
and no
"free speech" is protected from other "free speech"  in rebuttal, unless 
that
somehow crosses the line into  harassment

Bev Harris
Founder - Black Box  Voting
http://www.blackboxvoting.org

* * * * *

Government is  the servant of the people, and not the master of them. The
people, in  delegating authority, do not give their public servants the 
right
to decide  what is good for the people to know and what is not good for 
them to
know.  We insist on remaining informed so that we may retain control over  
the
instruments of government we have created.

Black Box Voting is a  nonpartisan, nonprofit 501c(3) elections watchdog 
group
funded entirely by  citizen donations.
http://www.blackboxvoting.org/donate.html
Black Box  Voting
330 SW 43rd St Suite K
PMB 547
Renton WA  98057


----------------------------------------------------------------
This  message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging  Program.

_______________________________________________
Law-election  mailing  list
Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20111017/19622a04/attachment.html>