[EL] Check out F.D.A. Surveillance of Scientists Spread to Outside Critic...
dasmith
dasmith at ufl.edu
Mon Jul 16 07:15:48 PDT 2012
Hi Jim
Again, where and when exactly did the harassment occur during the
Washington state R-71 popular referendum signature gathering that led to
Doe v. Reed?
As the lead author of the Direct Democracy Scholars amicus brief, that
you may recall was mentioned twice during SCOTUS oral argument, I was
unable much evidence at all of an individual being harassed for signing
a petition due to the subsequent public disclosure of petitions. And if
there ever was a case of such harassment, there are--of course--criminal
statutes that would apply.
If I'm not mistaken, on remand, the Federal District Court
[http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/doevreed-summary-judgment.pdf]
in its summary judgment dismissing your as-applied challenge had this to
say about the harassment due to public record requests of those signing
R-71:
Applied here, the Court finds that Doe has only supplied evidence
that hurts rather than helps its case. Doe has supplied minimal
testimony from a few witnesses who, in their respective deposition
testimony, stated either that police efforts to mitigate reported
incidents was sufficient or unnecessary. Doe has supplied no
evidence that police were or are now unable or unwilling to mitigate
any claimed harassment or are now unable or unwilling to control the
same, should disclosure be made. This is a quite different situation
than the progeny of cases providing an as-applied exemption wherein
the government was actually involved in carrying out the harassment,
which was historic, pervasive, and documented. To that end, the
evidence supplied by Doe purporting to be the best set of
experiences of threats, harassment, or reprisals suffered or
reasonably likely to be suffered by R-71 signers cannot be
characterized as "serious and widespread."
My Doe v. Reed amicus is available here
<http://wei.secstate.wa.gov/osos/en/initiativesReferenda/Documents/Court-Federal_Court/27_Amicus_Briefs/Direct%20Democracy%20Scholars.pdf>,
and and my recent comments, more broadly on disclosure, are here
<http://electionsmith.wordpress.com/category/doe-v-reed/>. And I know
you're familiar with my ELJ article
<http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/dasmith/Garrett&Smith.pdf> with Beth
Garrett:
So, please correct the record for me about the incidents of untoward
harassment that individuals signing a petition have incurred as a result
of public disclosure laws.
Best,
Dan
daniel a. smith, ph.d.
professor & uf research foundation professor (2010-2012)
coordinator, political science internship program
department of political science
003 anderson hall | phone: 352-273-2346
po box 117325 | fax: 352-392-8127
university of florida | email: dasmith at ufl.edu
gainesville, fl 32611-7325 | www.clas.ufl.edu/users/dasmith/
http://twitter.com/#!/electionsmith
On 7/16/2012 9:34 AM, JBoppjr at aol.com wrote:
> Of course not, this involved scientific critics of the FDA. The point
> is that government officials will go after critics however they find
> out about them and using the methods they have available.
> Regarding campaign contribution, in Doe v. Reed and the Prop 8 case,
> we document over 250 incidents of harassment of supporters of Prop 8,
> many of which were only contributors who were map quested on the
> Internet. A campaign of harassment that occurred against them is
> unusual. Public officials that retaliate against critics are usually
> very careful to make sure that no one knows they are doing it. The
> FDA did not send out a press release on their actions against their
> scientific critics either. Jim Bopp
> In a message dated 7/15/2012 11:03:48 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
> rhasen at law.uci.edu writes:
>
> I didn't see any evidence in this article that anyone was being
> harassed for making campaign contributions, and as we've discussed
> on this list /ad nauseum/ (and as spelled out in more detail here
> <http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1948313>), my
> view of the evidence from two recent cases involving allegations
> of harassment of campaign contributors is that there is no
> systemic evidence that harassment of campaign contributors is a
> problem. Rare instances of genuine threats of harassment may be
> dealt with through an "as applied" exemption to disclosure laws.
>
>
>
> On 7/15/12 8:06 AM, Joe La Rue wrote:
>> It is interesting that Van Hollen is upset about THIS disclosure.
>> Of course, he was number 14 on the list. I guess disclosure is
>> only good when it's somebody else's speech that is being disclosed.
>>
>> On Jul 15, 2012, at 6:28 AM, JBoppjr at aol.com
>> <mailto:JBoppjr at aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Click here: F.D.A. Surveillance of Scientists Spread to Outside
>>> Critics - NYTimes.com
>>> <http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/15/us/fda-surveillance-of-scientists-spread-to-outside-critics.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all>
>>>
>>> Government going after critics, exactly the type of activity
>>> that can chill political speech and that makes disclosure a
>>> burden. Jim Bopp
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Law-election mailing list
>>> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
>>> <mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
>>> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>
> --
> Rick Hasen
> Chancellor's Professor of Law and Political Science
> UC Irvine School of Law
> 401 E. Peltason Dr., Suite 1000
> Irvine, CA 92697-8000
> 949.824.3072 - office
> 949.824.0495 - fax
> rhasen at law.uci.edu
> http://law.uci.edu/faculty/page1_r_hasen.html
> http://electionlawblog.org
> Pre-order /The Voting Wars/: http://amzn.to/y22ZTv
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20120716/464cace2/attachment.html>
View list directory