Using Google Maps To Find Prop 8 Supporters (updated)

Are they starting to teach this in High School Civic class in this and age. Brave New World!!!

See Rod Dreher's post Prop 8 and too much information I agree with Rod when he says California.

It's damn creepy, is what it is. What could possibly be the use of this kind of information, presented in this way? It's intended to intimidate people into not participating in politics by donating money. Do that, and you'll end up on some activist group's map, with hotheads being able to find your street address on their iPhones.

I also agree for the reason he gives that this will backfire on all of us. Again this is and I think the intent is all something that subverts the social contract.

A few months ago a major Legal conference associated with most Law Colleges boycotted a hotel in San Diego that their convention was to be held at.

What was the crime of this hotel. The owner donated for Prop 8.

It did not matter that he was not a homophobe, or he had gay employees, or that he never discriminated against gays staying in his hotel. No the very fact he donated money to restore the law to what it was before the Supreme Court of Calif changed it by Judicial fiat just months before.

I thought that people involved in the legal field at least would find that perhaps other issues were at stake. Guess not. And see where this comes too.

Update-
The Volokh Conspiracy has a post on this hear that looks at form the legal angle and the chilling effect.

I did not realize that the donor name started at the 50 dollar donation mark. That is pretty low for public disclosure in my mind.

I agree with this
I suspect this sort of technology may well make people much more reluctant to donate money to (or against) controversial propositions -- and may lead people to rethink whether the government should indeed mandate disclosure of such contributions, especially small contributions.

and this

Finally, I should note that I think the organizers of the site have the First Amendment right to put it up, and I would oppose any attempts to outlaw such speech, or to make it civilly actionable. (For more on why even more dangerous speech should generally remain protected from government restriction, see here.) But the question is to what extent the government should make the creation of such maps easy, by making available information about ballot measure donors, including small donors.

The comments are interesting and a tad more saner than on many other sites. On forums and such in California there are a lot of gays and bisexuals that are supporting this though a few have concerns. On these sites I am struck by the view there is such a simplistic view of Prop 8 supporters. THEY ARE ALL HATERS. Which shows you the possible dangers as many are promoting this as a way to "Civic" Engagement"

In a similar vein as Rod's point about how this could backfire in the future one commenter above made a rather astute observation
Imagine if this technology had existed in 1957, and voter registration lists broken down by race had been available. Think of all the "civic engagement" that the Klan could have engaged in down South. Remember when homosexuals were big on privacy rights? (That was a long time ago, before al-Gayda came into existence.).

This brings up the most silly argument from the "This is a great idea" folks that I have seen tonight. That is well in the past gays have been outed and had their privacy violated and thus their very lives. So I guess what is the goose is good for the gander type reasoning.

The problem is this is not the age of Stonewall. Also it does not appear to enter their thought process that many iof hese people that gave 50 bucks might have attitudes like me. That is I am against gay marriage but generally have held the views that gays rights of privacy and that hatred and unproductive discrimination against gays should be a thing of the past. BUT THEY ARE ALL HATERS!!!

Other comments at the above legal site I am in the Amen Corner on

This map is clearly intended to intimidate one side of a Constitutional question. Expect the same method to be used by other groups, in other ways. Eventually, a protected minority will be "mapped", and then suddenly it will become front page news. But some of us will remember who started this.

These disclosures aren't at all similar to political office campaign cash disclosures, which help us keep tabs on political corruption. This seems an intrusion. Referendum is not legislation.(There is a point here I am not on board a 100 percent but I see it)

I think its fine to publish the information as long as it is also made a felony to use the information to harass or threaten people that make donations. In most states the voter roles are public, I can't help but think that if somebody used the voter roles to intimidate people in similar ways as the anti-prop 8 activists are, then they would end up in jail in short order.(Note I am not saying this will result in intimidation but I am wary. Time will tell)

gattsuru (mail) (www):
alkali
I may be misreading you here, but I think that California's policy regarding disclosure of donations to referendum campaigns is the same across the board. The fact that the names of donors are publicly available is just getting more attention in this case.

My apologies; I'm not good at communicating in English. The intent was to criticize a government database holding information regarding a speech-like or association-like action people may have wanted to keep private, regardless of the purpose. This is one particularly bad example, but the point holds (even if the matter is less inherently offensive) for databases of concealed carry owners or even fairly bland topics like support or opposition of a political candidate, levy, or bland law.

Update II

Finally going back to Rod's post that started this he comments and I guess this is the heart of the matter to me in many ways

Oh, wait, I think I know what the Nuremberg Files were. Or at least I can guess from context. I think it's very wrong and very dangerous to go to anyone's house and protest, even peacefully. Dangerous, because everyone's safety and peace depends on one's home being inviolate. To cross that boundary, even if the homeowner is a villain, is to breach the social peace in a fundamental way, one that invites and legitimizes one's opponents doing the same thing. I see no good that can come of that.
Do you think you could try to discuss the morality of the thing in question without having to resort to "I know you are, but what am I"? It's so fourth grade.