Print 
PDF
UPDATE: James Bopp Jr. Press Release
__________
The US Supreme Court ruled this morning that the names of those who signed the R-71 petitions can be made public.
However, the names cannot be released to the homosexual activists immediately.
The final decision will rest in a lower court, in that we have the option to ask the lower court for an exemption from disclosure in this case only.
I just finished a phone conference with our attorney James Bopp Jr. and we will be going to the lower court on count 2, seeking an exemption for R-71 petition signers only.
We see releasing the names as having a very chilling effect on citizen's exercise of free speech and participation in the initiative process. Particularly in those cases where threats have been made publicly toward those who signed.
The winners in this ruling by the Supreme Court are the media and, of course, Secretary of State Sam Reed and Attorney General Rob McKenna. Supporting briefs, advocating for the release of the names, have been filed with the court by 22 news organizations and media trade associations.
This matter is not settled yet.
We will keep you posted.
Gary Randall
Faith and Freedom Network
Threats are illegal, where are the prosecutions?
ReplyDeleteCan you believe it was 8 to 1 ????
ReplyDeleteApparently Clarence Thomas is the only non-activist judge and the only one who understands the constitution.
11:25 provides us with yet more proof that "judicial activism" is really just right-wing speak for "court decisions I don't like".
ReplyDeleteAbove. Have your fun. This isn't over yet.
ReplyDeleteIt seems the Supreme Court ruled against the inclusive nature of the case, not specifically R-71. I think you have a good chance in the lower court.
ReplyDeleteThe threats are real. I worked to gather signatures last summer and was more than one time confronted and threatened by gay activists. They were always taking pictures and video of us.
ReplyDeleteI believe there have been exceptions made to releasing names in the past. There was a labor or communist party who were given anonymity and a gay organization some years ago.
ReplyDeleteTaking pictures and video of a public activity (gathering signatures for a petition) is perfectly legal, and cannot seriously be construed as a threat. Confronting signature gatherers is likewise legal, free speech means free speech for EVERYONE, even those, who disagree with you.
ReplyDeleteHad you received any actual threats, which are illegal, you should have contact police and were these threats credible there would be prosecutions. If they are not credible, like all those touted by FFN and co so far, there will be no prosecutions. Just as there have been no prosecutions to date over the alleged "death threats" Gary and Larry attempted to create a media campaign over.
3:13,
ReplyDeleteWhile this court case may drag on for a while longer, the larger issue is over. The good citizens of Washington state soundly rejected your attempts to take away rights from your fellow citizens.
Justice Scalia - who is no liberal and no supporter of gays - pointed out how silly it is to lump illegal acts such as violence with perfectly legal actions, such as boycotts and protests. Your First Amendment rights don't give you the right to be free of other people's critical speech. Given that you can't rely on the "threat" of lawful reactions like protests and boycotts, you have no evidence of any serious illegal harassment. A couple of heated blog comments and supposedly a threat against Mr. Stickney, for which he never even bothered to file a police complaint and for which there is no corroborating evidence.
ReplyDeleteDid someone early on here really imply/call Justices Alito and Scalia activist? Wow -- that just shows how crazy some of the opponents of R-71 really are.
ReplyDeleteFYI --- if you read the concurring opinions closely 5 of the Justices hinted that they wouldn't agree with an exemption in the specific case of R-71. So there goes count 2. But feel free to let Mr. Bopp take your wasted money.
I really wish that Justice Scalia had included his oral argument quote along the lines of "it takes courage to have a citizen's democracy." Have courage if you don't believe in the rights of same-sex couples and don't try to hide behind public disclosure laws.
6:39 --- you forgot that "activist judge" really just means " a judge who makes a decision I wouldn't have made"
ReplyDelete