SHARE THIS SHOW:
RELATED CONVERSATIONS:
RECENTLY ON TOL:
TOL Our Town
- A tumblr site dedicated to the people and places that make up Oregon and Southwest Washington.
TAGS:
New developments in two public records cases in the Northwest will open up more information to the public.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Thursday in favor of Washington Secretary of State Sam Reed, who wanted to make referendum petition signatures public. A group that collected signatures to try to put Washington's domestic partnership law to a vote challenged the Secretary of State, saying its members feared harrassment if the names of those who signed were released. We discussed this back in September, when a federal judge kept the signatures under wraps.
The same week, the Oregon Court of Appeals sided with a newspaper that requested the names of people who hold concealed weapons permits in Jackson County. The Medford Mail Tribune asked for the list of names as part of the paper's coverage of a high-profile case of a Medford teacher who challenged the local school board's policy of not allowing guns on campus. We talked about this issue on our show a year and a half ago, when the paper won their case in a lower court.
Have you been following either one of these public records cases? Do you have a concealed weapons permit? Do you sign referendum or ballot initiative petitions? Will you think twice about either one now that a record of your signature or permit could become public?
Tagged as: guns · initiative · public records · referendum · supreme court
Photo credit: Hybridotus / Creative Commons
-
I wouldn't tell you if I had a concealed weapon permit because I'd give away my deterrence aegis: you don't know whether I'm armed. You have to take your chances. Go ahead, make my day. Just joking. The challenge is to prevent and sidestep conflict in the first place.
Since privacy protection is breaking down in the USA, I've stopped signing petitions unless I really believe in the potential legislation. Retribution can come from too many angles. I don't want my petition signature, or how I vote, to become public.
Isn't part of the idea of concealing votes to protect individuals from being manipulated into changing their stance in the favor of a bully?
-
It does seem like making public a concealed weapons permit nullifies the purpose of the permit.
-
There is a Cartoon of a dog typing on a keyboard and looking at a screen, and the caption says,
"On the Internet, No One Knows You are a Dog."
We initallly signed into the internet with our full names....then those ran out at Yahoo. Then we had pseudonames and random names and sexless names in random chatrooms. The Internet was new, and experience taught us to be cautious.
Now we are in the age of social networking websites. With MySpace, Linked In and Face Book, we are divulging more and more voluntarily to the public. It is more the young people, Generation Y and Generation Net.......Xers and Boomers tend to be more paranoid or know better.
We reveal our likes, dislikes, favorite foods, favorite beverages, fears, sexual preference, relationships, state or dysfunction of our marriage. dreams and fantasies. We even reveal our most trivial spontaneous thoughts on Twitter on a running feed commentary. IT is a listening stream to the seat of conciousness.
Surpisingly some even delve into that which should not be discussed in public--not sex, get your head out of the toilet-- but PERSONAL FINANCES.
The Internet is Social, Geographic, Historical, Financial Information 24/7 at your fingerprints. Walk in of a neighborhood with your iPhone and be able to get real estate sales data, satellite maps, listing of occupants, vehicle registrations, school data and even medical and financial data of the residents...in real time. The information will not go away, but get more capable and better packaged and more easily accessed. The Age of 'Hello My Name is....' Name Tag is over. We got your data at hand in real time.
THe Younger Generations will be more Open. If you can reveal your sexual liasons and current bank statement, why would you limit the fact that you signed a petition or have a fishing or hunting license. .....OR are an active NRA Member.
-
The debate around this issue is disengenuous - the only reason to publish the names of either group is to identify, personally, who makes up those groups. With the technology available today that knowledge will be used. Commercially - what better way to identify a target market than to find out who does something so personal? Politically - find out who your friends and foes are. Economically - don't like working with "those people?" Check the list before you hire. (Without fear of reprisal if you just keep your mouth shut.) Personally - just another piece of data that will be available when doing a net 'background check'.
Welcome to the fish bowl, fishies!
-
I agree with this, wholeheartedly. There are many whackos out there who will go to extremes to harass those who express opposing opinions. We need to balance the rights of individuals to not be harrassed with the open disclosure of who supports particular initiatives. When an organization puts big money into getting an initiative passed, that should be disclosed. But, when an individual signs a petition, the potential discouragement of free speech needs to be balanced against the so called "right" of organizations to identify me and harass me. However, if I gave a substantial amount of money to support the initiative, I should be willing to stand up to public scrutiny.
-
I agree with BillP.
I think signing a petition is relatively passive compared to actively giving money.
-
How is it that our votes in an election are not public records?
-
It worries me that my signature could be made public record. Not because I am embarrassed or ashamed of my voting decisions. But because we live in a mean and revenge driven time and I fear what the other side would do with having my information.
As, for the gun decision, how is it wise that the general public can have a working inventory of every gun owner in the state. Some things should remain private between the state and law abiding citizens
NaTasha
PDX
-
The Washington Secretary of State refers to exemptions. What are these exemptions? Please list them. Who lobbied for them? Why do some special groups receive exemptions?
-
It is with gut-wrenching laughter that I respond to the idea that people are fearful their gun will get stolen, or they are more likely to be attacked, because criminals know they have a concealed weapons permit. And, somehow by not knowing this, the risk and the gamble is more exciting to crooks. We are to believe, attackers, somehow, prefer to not know what they are up against! Wow, these people really have their finger on the pulse of deterrence. Perhaps they also have unicorns in their barns.
-
I guess you've never been in the military. You don't understand "the element of surprise". The whole idea of a "concealed weapon" is to keep from being a primary target.
-
mikejb,
That is correct, I have never been in the military... .
People often argue a gun is a deterrent. To now say a civilian is going to be the target of an attack because people know they are walking around with a gun is ridiculous. What exactly does a gun protect you from then? If a gun is so desirable to criminals that you are only going to be attacked because you have one---then get rid of it. Surely, considering you are armed, you should be well prepared for the attack anyway. This can't work both ways.
-
I would like to address specifically the comments on an american tradition of taking responsabilities for your speech. One of our most important documents. "Letters from a Farmer in Pennsylvania", Which united the colonies, and was extremely important to the founding of our government was published under an anonymous pen name. Anonymous speech was extremely important in our society. Such as reporters having anonymous sources, and being able to protect those sources within a court of law.
-
Couldn't these records be copyrighted? The records could be inspected by anyone, but republishing would be prohibited?
Bob
-
I find it terribly difficult to swallow any of Steven Pigeon’s hypocrticial arguments regarding the petition signers’ RIGHTS when the goal of the petition itself was to take away important, life-altering RIGHTS from a vast number of Washington citizens. Stop playing the victim Steven Pigeon! And harassment? ... this petition ITSELF was a form of harassment!
-
"Stop playing the victim Steven Pigeon!"
Exactly!
He and his fellow travelers attack and then claim victimhood.
Mr Pigeon reminded me of the speech that Hitler gave just before invading Poland, claiming that he and all Germans were the victims of the Polish Jews and so he had to invade and attack the Jews.
Conservatives have always picked out minority groups to bully and use to fear-monger their own base into submissive compliance and it is long past time that they be stopped in their hate campaigns.
-
Perhaps the worst thing about the effort to hide the Washington petitioners' names is the implication that those who support gay rights are not only capable, but likely, to harrass the petitioners. This is simply another example of discrimination and slander against gay people.
-
There are no checks to keep inititives off a ballot which are based on hate or discrimination... except disclosure of the signee.
-
This is not true. If you don't like the content of a ballot measure, then use factual persuasive arguments to defeat it. Publishing the names of initiative signers is an attempt at intimidation not persuasion.
-
Isn't that the definition of democracy: there is no limit on what we can vote on?
If it's hateful, I would hope that people would vote against it.
If it's discriminatory, courts should find it unconstitutional.
-
I am old and partially disabled. I can't protect myself like others can. I don't think the police can protect me. I am afraid of extremists who would silence me or take away my right to vote, just because I can't fight back-- especially now that I don't have the opportunity to quietly carry a weapon.
I often signed petitions to put issues to a vote-- even if I didn't agree with them! I am afraid to now.
-
It is a pretty juicy Rationalization.
You are old and partially disabled and I am sorry. But having an itchy trigger finger on a Magnum makes you feel empowered? You have a handgun on your hip and you are still afraid?
Statistically Handgun owners are more likely to suffer from self inflicted wounds than to take down a bad guy. A cell phone has more utility and you can use it to call an ambulance.
-
I don't have a handgun on my hip. It would not make me feel empowered. I don't have a cell phone (it costs money and I have no one to call), but I agree that it would be good in an emergency.
A concealed weapon does not have to be a handgun.
I merely want to be free to carry a weapon if I choose and not add to my risk by showing it.
I would be a fool to carry a weapon that I could not use competently and effectivelly. An "itchy" trigger finger is a tactical liability.
-
Regarding the "slippery slope", I liken the signing of a petition for a law more like voting, than to giving money to support and initiative. Would folks want their votes at the ballot box to be made public? However, if a person or organization gave significant money to support an initiative petition, that should be made public. I feel that the possibility of being harassed or sent spam email for signing a petition for an initiative to be more harmful than having a single voter's name being private.
-
If you want to release the names of Concealed Handgun Permit Holders then I think Medical Marijuana Card Holders should have their names released.
-
Very good idea. All employers should have access to this information.
-
The issue is really: How far should privacy go? I'm in favor of as much as possible. Should our health records be public? Should our votes for political candidates be public? Folks' opinions seem to be informed by which issue they think they would be called upon to stand up for (or against) publicly. This issue cuts both ways. The Facebook privacy controversy illustrates this.
-
Those who do not feel vulnerable, will demand transparency of their opponents. On the other side, those who live with people who dominate them, cherish a secret ballot. Further compounding the problem are scoundrels who also live in the shadows we create to protect people. It will always take a lot of sorting out.
-
The threat of hostility from people who don't like gun owners, is a lot less risky then the threat of someone armed in the classroom. Assumedly, people who don't like gun owners, don't carry guns---so their risk is only one of words.
-
...words... only words.
Usually I have respect for your intellect even when I may disagree. -
Desolation:
You seem Depressed. Seek Help. --Hamlet
-
jacob
Depressed?
Such is not possible whilst surrounded by the mirth of fools.
Enjoy you day. -
Desolation,
So, not this time?
-
Sadly, no.
I have every confidence you will rebound.
It is a beautiful day in Oregon, I do hope you have time to enjoy it.
Desolation -
IF you were a Crime Fighting Super Heroe with a Hidden Identity, should you be forced to disclose even if it can reduce your effectiveness and provide Lex Luther your home address?
Too many people think they are Superman.
-
Even if you propose people are vicious, and are looking to clean out your closet, to dredge up every piece of possible garbage about you---the solution is not to hide and make everything private, to insulate yourself from any accountability---to live in complete privacy and anonymity. Is that how our citizens want to live---in fear? After nine-eleven, we were told not to let the terrorists win, by allowing them to infect our society with fear. I guess we didn't need 'the terrorists' when we have ourselves.
-
My wife is a teacher. If the teacher wanted to bring a weapon to school it was probably to have protection for herself and her students in the event of a mass shooting such as Columbine. Those seeking to single out this person were more than likely intending to flag teachers and use this information against them to threaten their jobs.
-
You know what's going to happen if you can't keep your gun concealed by private permit, the NRA will lobby to make it legal to carry a concealed gun without a permit!
-
I understand the visceral responses to this issue-- I'm as protective of my so-called rights to privacy as the next person. But. . . I guess my much-revered high school civics teacher was wrong when he impressed us with the notion that signing a petition to put a measure on the ballot was just that: stating your support that it be put on the ballot-- technically, it's not an indicator of whether the signer AGREES with the intent of the measure. I sign petitions regardless of how I might ultimately vote on the issue b/c I believe that's the underlying driving force behind the democratic process--- the old "let's vote on it and let the chips fall where they may" approach. In that light, it doesn't matter who signs what petition. Have I missed this point in the discussion this mormning? Hopelessly naive?
-
Nope. Good point!
-
profblong:
I agree with you "let's vote on it and let the chips fall where they may". I, too, sign petitions that I don't necessarily like.
I think the point is that extremists don't meet with you out in the open to thoughtfully discuss the issue. They wait in the shadows to ambush you.
Do I sound paranoid? It's not paranoia if someone really is out to get you! Recently, the news media reported on violent threats by conservative extremists against legislators for their votes in congress.
-
I listened to the end of the discussion this morning. Certain speakers and callers seemed to think that making this list public would be such a violation of privacy, even claiming that making the list public would encourage criminals to come steal from them.
I don't believe it. Bankruptcy petitions list everything that the filer owns. This information is public record. I have never once heard of a bankruptcy filer having criminals come ransack their homes or steal from them because of this public list of what they own.
And as for privacy, bankruptcy petitions list everything owned and owed. The right to this "privacy" is eliminated in exchange for eliminating debt. By the same token, those who want to carry a concealed weapon give up the right to have that secret in exchange for carrying the weapon. This exchange is part of the right.
These complaints are a lot of hoopla about nothing. Gun advocates need to stop thinking like they should have complete unaduterated freedom in their right. All rights come with limits. Why does their right to "privacy" trump my right to know who could be hiding a weapon? They have more freedom than most and a lot more than they deserve.
The list should be public. I want to know which houses my children cannot play at. I want to know who to avoid if I have a problem in the middle of the night and need help. The reality is that someone is more likely to shoot someone accidentally than they are going to shoot someone breaking into their home.
-
I wish I had as much free time as you. Looking up people with weapons permits, trying to find out where they live, and getting to know their faces so you know when to cross the street seems like a lot of leg work. Just joking.
Someone is NOT more likely to shoot someone accidentally than they are going to use that weapon to prevent a crime in their house. But you ARE more likely to hear about the accidental shooting on the news. Crime statistics, like all statistics, are easily manipulated to prove anyones point of view is correct.
The fact of the matter is that it won't matter if these peoples names become public record. You will not know who they are on the street and I can garauntee that you have already been in the same place with someone who was carrying a concealed weapon and didn't even know it.
-
Comments are now closed.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Thursday in favor of Washington Secretary of State Sam Reed, who wanted to make referendum petition signatures public. A group that collected signatures to try to put Washington's domestic partnership law to a vote challenged the Secretary of State, saying its members feared harrassment if the names of those who signed were released. We discussed this back in September, when a federal judge kept the signatures under wraps.
Really? Those who supported the petition were fearful of harassment? Surely it couldn't have been nearly as bad as the harassment that those of us in the LGBTIQ Community are subjected to. We face the risk of harassment on a daily basis, as our gender identity or sexual orientation is not a choice -- whereas signing a petition to put the codification of discrimination and hate to a vote is a choice.
Indeed, in some cases, the harassment Transgendered Folks are subjected to may be worse than that our Lesbian Sisters and Gay Brothers face, as while undergoing transition we are more conspicuous than we wish to be, and more obvious (due in part to our shifting wardrobe) than our Gay Brothers and Lesbian Sisters.
(Stepping down off the soapbox...NEXT!)