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

[David A. Schultz]

Joe:

Note what I said in my post:  "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."

Real harassment should be grounds to act against harassers.   What you are arguing here is a version or perhaps the converse of the heckler's veto--Mere threats of violence are enough to justify concealment.  Much in the same way that the law struggles over the line between harassment or threats v. speech as in Brandenburg v Ohio, I do not claim to know how to draw the exact line and say when a a heckle is a heckle versus a real threat to safety.

I have long supported minimum thresholds for disclosure to protect some privacy and prevent the type of retaliation that you allege.  Current federal law embodies that for contributions.

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
>>> Joe La Rue  07/23/12 9:22 AM >>>
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/20120723/6d1b7ef0/attachment.html>