[EL] A nation of sissies!/ Re: The enemies list, then and now

[Joe La Rue]

David,


I agree that we should be able to take some teasing for our political
views. But what about death threats? What about actual acts of violence?
What about threats to rape one's children? What about vandalism? What about
being fired because you made a $100 donation to a cause your employer
didn't like?

Do you think those things are part of what robust debate in a free society
is about? I suspect you don't. And I also suspect you'll say something
along the lines of, "That's what we have the police for." The problem,
though, is that some of this type of harrassment is not criminal (i.e.,
firing an at will employee). And while most of it *is *criminal, the acts
of violence and infliction of terror cannot be undone even if the police
investigate.

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 23, 2012 at 6:25 AM, David A. Schultz
<dschultz at gw.hamline.edu>wrote:

> Justice Scalia is often fond of declaring that the purpose of the First
> Amendment is to promote robust debate.  I agree with him.  But at the same
> time that the First Amendment gives individuals a right to say whatever
> they want, it also means others have a right to respond, hold you
> accountable, and even say you are crazy for your position.  Maybe you get
> mocked, teased, or satirized, but all that is part of what robust debate in
> a free society is about.
>
> I say this because I fear that the debate about disclosure is exposing us
> to be a nation of wimps!  The arguments being presented here seem to
> suggest that I should be protected from any type of criticism or
> controversy surrounding my political contributions.  I am sorry but the
> First Amendment does not insulate that.  Yes real harassment--such as
> lynchings or cross burnings in front yards as was feared in the NAACP v.
> Alabama case--are something we should worry about, but teasing, taunting,
> publishing a list of names, boycotts, all of that is part of the robust
> debate surrounding the First Amendment that we should expect.  I hate to
> steal Truman's line "But if you can't stand the heat. . ."  If you cannot
> take the legitimate public scrutiny or criticism surrounding your political
> contribution then stay out of politics.  As Scalia once said about
> administrative law one can also say about politics--it ain't for sissies!
>
> On another note:  Please remember that NAACP v. Alabama ruled in that case
> that case that membership lists of non-profit organizations were protected
> by the First Amendment against government exposure because of the unique
> aspects of the organization and the facts of the cases demonstrating real
> possibility of reprisal.  The case did not rule that donor lists were
> protected by the First Amendment, unless I missed something.
>
>
>
>
> David Schultz, Professor
> Editor, Journal of Public Affairs Education (JPAE)
> Hamline University
> School of Business
> 570 Asbury Street
> Suite 308
> St. Paul, Minnesota 55104
> 651.523.2858 (voice)
> 651.523.3098 (fax)
> http://davidschultz.efoliomn.com/
> http://works.bepress.com/david_schultz/
> http://schultzstake.blogspot.com/
> Twitter: @ProfDSchultz
> Named one of the inaugural 2012 FacultyRow SuperProfessors
>
> >>> David Epstein <david.l.epstein at gmail.com> 07/23/12 8:10 AM >>>
> This is it? Seriously? After reading the column, I see that someone
> (presumably wealthy) who donated money to Romney has been audited. I
> also see that an Obama "campaign website" listed some donors along
> with aspersions on their characters, but (tellingly), there is no link
> provided to this website. If someone has the link, I'd be happy to
> follow that too, but my guess is that it wasn't published by the
> actual Obama campaign.
>
> Pretty thin gruel, definitely on the level of internet urban legends
> rather than actual news.
>
> On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 8:59 AM, <JBoppjr at aol.com> wrote:
> > Click here: The enemies list, then and now | Power Line
> >
> > Interesting story about harassment of contributors triggered by the
> > Obama campaign.
> >
> > Opps, on second thought, don't read, we have been authoritatively told
> > that this does not happen. Jim Bopp
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Law-election mailing list
> > Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> > http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>
>
>
> --
> **************************************
> David Epstein
> Paradox Consulting
> 250 West 89th Street
> Suite 12-J
> New York, NY 10024
> 646-391-7733
> **************************************
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> http://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/20120723/1a934bf7/attachment.html>