[EL] Doe v. Reed, more news

Mon Oct 17 17:21:21 PDT 2011

I am surprised that no commentary on Doe v Reed today has brought up the issue of the signers' residence addresses being made public.  Many people are not reluctant at all to have the general public know that they signed a petition.  But they are reluctant to have their residence address (not a post office box, but the actual residence) posted on an internet site.

There are many state legislators around the nation who don't want the public to know what their residence address is.  A large percentage of the entries for state legislators on the Project Vote Smart web page even are blank for that legislator's city or town.  Nowadays people who are sensitive about their residence address feel that it is sufficient that they can be reached by e-mail or phone.

I doubt the US Supreme Court Justices would be happy if there were a web page that showed their residence addresses.  Ditto for many lower court judges.

Richard Winger

415-922-9779

PO Box 470296, San Francisco Ca 94147

--- On Mon, 10/17/11, Steve Klein <stephen.klein.esq at gmail.com> wrote:

From: Steve Klein <stephen.klein.esq at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [EL] Doe v. Reed, more news
To: "Bev Harris" <bev at blackboxvoting.org>
Cc: law-election at uci.edu
Date: Monday, October 17, 2011, 3:52 PM

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 I'm still on the fence with Doe v. Reed because of the status of citizens as legislators in such instances, but in the advocacy context this is far too simplistic. 
 Compare NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co., 458 U.S. 886 (1982) with NAACP v. Alabama, 357 U.S. 449 (1958).  It's one thing to speak and to take careful steps to protect one's identity, then make a misstep and become subject to open criticism (or boycotts, etc.-- all protected speech). It's quite another for the government to decide that those who oppose speakers (again, not necessarily petition signers but ballot measure advocates, those making independent expenditures that cost more than Mrs. McIntyre's pamphlets, etc.) have the right to access information so as to rebut/criticize them. 
 It seems to eerily parallel Justice Kagan's dissent in McComish, inching toward a governmental interest in "more speech" that calls for not only disclosing speakers, but subsidizing their opponents. 
 On a side note, I'm very thankful the "you can always call the police" line hasn't caught on in Second Amendment jurisprudence, and pray it never will. 
  On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 4:23 PM, Bev Harris <bev at blackboxvoting.org> wrote:

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

-- 
Steve KleinStaff Attorney & Research Counsel*Wyoming Liberty Groupwww.wyliberty.org

*Licensed to practice law in Illinois. Counsel to the Wyoming Liberty Group pursuant to Rule 5.5(d) of the Wyoming Rules of Professional Conduct. 

-----Inline Attachment Follows-----

_______________________________________________
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/20111017/04438aa0/attachment.html>