“Outing” Their Opponents
From Jason Kuznicki, I found this story about a gay activist couple–Alexander Westerhoff and Thomas Lang–who have created a web site that will post the name and address of anyone who signs a petition to ban gay marriage in Massachusetts. (If the petition gains 65,825 signatures, a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage will appear on the 2008 ballot.)
Under Massachusetts law, the petition signatures are a matter of public record. Needless to say, however, petition supporters are crying foul and alleging intimidation. It’s one thing for a person to be able to make a trip to the Secretary of State’s office and view the petition. It’s another to collect the names and addresses and post them on a web site geared toward those who oppose the petition. I happen to have personal experience with the kind of harassment a person can cause armed with only your name and address (for details on that, read the extended post).
There is a slight precedent for what Westerhoff and Lang are doing. In 1997, a web site called the “Nuremberg Files” was created, which listed the names, addresses, photos and/or criminal and civil suit records of abortionists. Just as the stated purpose of Westerhoff and Lang’s web site is to provide publicly-available information and “promote discourse,” the stated purpose of the Nuremberg Files was to compile “factual information” to be used in a future trial of abortionists for their “crimes against humanity.” Nevertheless, courts interpreted the Nuremberg Files as a threat against abortionists. Although I have no reason to believe Westerhoff and Lang wish physical harm to petition signers, Lang was quoted by the Boston Herald saying of the signers, “I might not support them or their philanthropies or their businesses”–clearly signalling a desire to punish petition signers economically. And surely Mr. Lang knows there are individuals out there who would use this information for purposes of harassment.
It’s worth noting that Westerhoff and Lang have gone to lengths to keep their address private. The contact address on the web site is a PO box, and if you try a WHOIS lookup, you’ll find that they registered the domain name using a proxy service. However, I have managed to find their address. If you’d like to write them a polite letter telling them what you think of their plan, you can contact them at:
Alexander Westerhoff & Thomas Lang
3 Colburn Rd.
Manchester, MA 01944-1201
Update: This is interesting. The photo that appears on this page also appears in several places on the anti-petition web site, with different text on the sign the couple is holding.
Here’s what happened to me a few years ago: When I was a columnist at the Indiana Daily Student I wrote a column criticizing an argument often used to justify gay marriage–“you can’t legislate morality.” A week later, a vaguely threatening post card referring to my column was sent to me at the IDS. Although I was inclined to dismiss it, my editor insisted I report it to the campus police. Shortly after that, I began receiving magazine subscriptions I never requested, followed by bills for those magazines. Obviously, the post card sender was putting my name and address on magazine subscription cards and sending them in. This continued for nearly a year, and at least one of the magazines referred me to a collection agency before I was able to convince them the subscription request had been fraudulent.
9 Responses to ““Outing” Their Opponents”
That picture is not very interesting at all, it looks like a stock photo from a marketing bank of some sort where you apply the text you want over the card. While I do not see another page with a different set of text, this set is clearly Photoshoped onto the card
In the business trade papers it is not uncommon to see the exact same photograph used by two different companies promoting completely different products.
I did think of the possibility that the graphic is a stock photo. Nevertheless, I still find it interesting that I’ve seen the photo on exactly two web sites and those two sites are directly opposed to each other. Coincidence, or a bit of satire?
For those who are not public figures, I think it is bad taste and not community-minded to post addresses of petition signers. For elected officials or those who hold prominent leadership positions that may be different.
I don’t think the fact that the records are public is completely relevant.
1. Many petition signatures are forged. Those listed as signing a petition have not always in fact done so. Even some signatures that are validated by a Secretary of State’s office are probably still forgeries. Sometimes fake addresseses are used.
2. Because of IRS regulations, oil companies have been required to put social security or other tax id numbers on oil and gas leases, which are then publicly filed in the counties where the land is located. So, in a manner of speaking, my social security number might be seen as a “public record” since it is filed among the deed records of some counties. Does that mean it would be ethical for people to post my number on the web? (This is a hypothetical — I haven’t checked to see if there are laws that ban such posting notwithstanding that the ID# is part of a publicly filed — deed or oil & gas lease records — instrument.)
So, I would tend to side with Eric on this matter. While there is a place for accountability and ability to engage opponents in public discussion, civil society also requires that we stop short of intimidation to get our way.
1. Many petition signatures are forged. Those listed as signing a petition have not always in fact done so. Even some signatures that are validated by a Secretary of State’s office are probably still forgeries. Sometimes fake addresseses are used.
Helpfully, knowthyneighbor.org provides a form where people whose names have been added fraudulently may register to be removed; this does a service to the petitioners as much as to anyone else, as it could help eliminate many difficulties before they even get started.
The people who oppose gay civil rights claim to be proud of their stance. If the documents are public records, they should be pleased at the opportunity to show their colors.
But they aren’t really proud of their bigotry, are they? I wonder why.
Maybe they just do not want to be harassed.
If they don’t want to be harassed, perhaps they could decide not to harass the gay couples in Massachusetts who just want to lead their lives without other people trying to impose their own personal religious convictions on them. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you?
Yes, you could say that if I think a bit of harassment for those who sign the petition is justified (and I wouldn’t advocate more than a postcard challenging their views politely and without profanity) that I should post my name and address here. So I’m a hypocrite too. But I’m not advocating that the petition signers be legally barred from marriage.
And you get pissy with Alexander Westerhoff and Thomas Lang for posting addresses on their web site when the Attorney General of Massachusetts has already posted the names on the state’s web site? This information is so much public record that you don’t have to drive to an office and talk to an official to get it; you just have to go online here: http://www.ago.state.ma.us/sp.cfm?pageid=2144.
What these dopes don’t understand is that many sign for ballot initiatives to further propogate democratic participation. I myself as a staunch Republican sign anything related to ballot initiatives and even to get candidates the necessary signatures to run–even opposition candidates. Let’s be fair and help people have a voice or an office. Thomas Lang is a Republican in name only, who doesn’t realize that gay marriage is a special right in addition to the right to marry that he already has. In addition to this, with the advent of gay marriage, gays still receive so called parity benefits, which is a special right. Thomas Lang refers to himself as Thomas Lang (R) although he holds no office. He is pretentious and takes the time to tell you he drives a Jaguar. He is unfamiliar with the statistics behind votes, stating that it is only the fundamentalist evangelicals who vote. (Let’s remember that those two terms represent two distinct groups.) What is the worst thing that can happen? Gays will ostracize someone who signs the ballot petition? Isn’t it odd that they wouldn’t support democracy? They would rather support judicial activism. What if the judicial activism they foster is one day used against them?
Brian Brandt
Gay Republican
Boston Ward 3 Republican Committee
Young Republican
Boston, MA