[EL] Check out F.D.A. Surveillance of Scientists Spread to Outside Critic...

Mon Jul 16 07:52:12 PDT 2012

I will let Jim address the specific question if he so chooses. When I
worked for him I saw the record-evidence, and there was a lot. But I no
longer have easy access to it, so I'll leave it to Jim to respond if he
wishes. But I want to make two points:

FIRST, the fact that there are criminal statutes that can be invoked
to punish those harrassing others *after the harrassment has occurred *does
not really solve the problem. It may punish the wrong-doer, (maybe), but it
doesn't prevent the harrassment in the first place. And, frankly,
harrassment may be more than merely annoying; it can be dangerous.
Consequently, in heated campaigns such as those involving same-sex
"marriage" many people may refuse to get involved if they know they are
going to be "outed."

SECOND, there is not recourse for a lot of harrassment. For instance, there
were individuals who lost their jobs for contributing minimal amounts of
money in support of Prop 8 in California. As at-will employees, they had no
recourse. Again, many people may refuse to engage in the political speech
and association occuring with making contributions to ballot measures if
they know it might lead to the termination of their employment.
Joe
___________________
*Joseph E. La Rue*
cell: 480.272.2715
email: joseph.e.larue at gmail.com

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:  This e-mail message, including any attachments, is
for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential
and privileged information or otherwise be protected by law. Any
unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you
are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail
and destroy all copies of the original message.

On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 7:15 AM, dasmith <dasmith at ufl.edu> wrote:

>  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 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
> 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 listLaw-election at department-lists.uci.eduhttp://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/c0fc7f7f/attachment.html>