Slashdot stories can be listened to in audio form via an RSS feed, as read by our own robotic overlord.

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Courts The Internet

Legal War For WA State Sunshine Law 1364

Posted by kdawson
from the public-acts-public-records dept.
joeszilagyi writes "In a major battle in Washington State, anti-gay rights groups created and got R-71 on the 2009 election ballot. This is a public initiative to put same-sex civil unions up for public vote. The real legal war then erupted: activists created WhoSigned.org to take advantage of WA state's Public Records Act, and put the names of all people who publicly endorsed R-71 on a public, SEO-optimized website. Lawsuits quickly followed, and today it reached the United States Supreme Court, in a matter of months. The records appear to have always been public, but have only been available in digital form since 2006. An assault on civil rights, an assault on marriage, or an assault on sunshine laws and freedom of information?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Legal War For WA State Sunshine Law

Comments Filter:
  • by wiredog (43288) on Tuesday October 20, 2009 @07:15AM (#29806141) Journal

    is passed in every legislative session.

    • by AndersOSU (873247) on Tuesday October 20, 2009 @08:47AM (#29807163)

      this is not an unintended consequence.

      Petitions have always been public, and sunshine laws let the public see public records.

      The only unintended consequence is that some activists are unhappy that they're being associated with the movement they support.

      • by commodore64_love (1445365) on Tuesday October 20, 2009 @09:28AM (#29807757) Journal

        >>>some activists are unhappy that they're being associated with the movement they support.

        Wow.

        Terrible.

        The horror.

        /end sarcasm. If you support a cause then you ought not be ashamed about it. Hand me that petition; I'll sign it. I don't care if you marry another man, woman, or a whole bunch of women (harem), and I don't care if you find my name on it. It's a free country and you should be free to marry whoever you want to marry. That's what freedom means. ----- Now as for the extra benefits of marriage - those are the things that should be eliminated. A guy and girl who are just living together shouldn't feel pressured to get "married" just to reduce their taxes. Even when married they should still pay the same tax as when they were two singles. I believe in equality - all individuals treated identically.

        • by Late Adopter (1492849) on Tuesday October 20, 2009 @09:56AM (#29808183)

          Hand me that petition; I'll sign it. I don't care if you marry another man, woman, or a whole bunch of women (harem), and I don't care if you find my name on it.

          You may want to read the petition first, then, because it's supporting a referendum to REPEAL civil unions in Washington.

        • by skine (1524819) on Tuesday October 20, 2009 @10:16AM (#29808521)

          Just because they don't want their names to be seen does not mean that they are ashamed.

          Perhaps they're afraid of what might happen to them personally if their name is found.

          For example, if a southerner had signed a petition favoring the right of black people to vote, they would damn well hope that it was anonymous. Not out of embarrassment, but out of personal safety.

          Anonymity is the better option in these situations, since it provides an accurate count of how many people actually agree with the cause, not the number of people who will openly admit to it.

          • by Chyeld (713439) <chyeld@gm a i l . c om> on Tuesday October 20, 2009 @10:43AM (#29809033)

            Yes, because historically we've had mobs of gay rights activists who have rioted, killed, and otherwise physically assaulted and intimidated straight folk. That's what "gay rage" means, right? ...

            What? You mean it doesn't?

          • by wastedlife (1319259) on Tuesday October 20, 2009 @12:19PM (#29810799) Homepage Journal

            I believe that you are mistaking a petition with a vote. Votes are and should be kept as anonymous as possible while still preventing fraud, signing a petition means you are signing that you personally are in support of the cause. If you could anonymously sign a petition, then what is to stop someone from filling a petition with anonymous #1 through #1,000,000? Votes are handled by voting authorities to try to prevent fraud, petitions can be held by the person or group supporting the cause they are petitioning for.

          • by Ronald Dumsfeld (723277) on Tuesday October 20, 2009 @12:54PM (#29811413)
            I have to disagree here, and shake my head sadly at the number of up-modded clueless Slashbots talking on this.

            It is people who wish to restrict gay rights behind this. It is a first in terms of arguing for anonymity in such a way on a petition-backed ballot option.

            Gays who have campaigned elsewhere, and run petitions for ballot items, have put up with their names being publicly available.

            If you're a raging homophobe in private, fine. If you want to sign a petition calling for a ballot on restricting the rights of people you don't like — have the balls to accept the potential consequences.
            • by Red Flayer (890720) on Tuesday October 20, 2009 @03:40PM (#29814045) Journal

              Gays who have campaigned elsewhere, and run petitions for ballot items, have put up with their names being publicly available.

              If you're a raging homophobe in private, fine. If you want to sign a petition calling for a ballot on restricting the rights of people you don't like -- have the balls to accept the potential consequences.

              I'm just going to agree with you, and add one more significant item that I think some people are missing...

              Signing a petition is a public, formal, declaration of support for something. That's what a petition is. That's the entire purpose of a petition. Period.

              This is not about sunshine laws or oppression of anyone (gays or homophobes or religious fundamentalists). This whole issue arises from stupid people not understanding what it was they were signing... they signed a public statement of support.

  • by piotru (124109) on Tuesday October 20, 2009 @07:17AM (#29806159) Homepage Journal

    Since you asked.

  • So? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by sanosuke001 (640243) on Tuesday October 20, 2009 @07:20AM (#29806171)
    Did anyone really expect their participation to be secret? It's a public vote; they should be tracked for verification. Anyone who signed should have understood that as well-informed adults. Anyone who didn't has no excuse for being upset over this. If they didn't want people to know they support gay rights they shouldn't have signed it.
    • by Shivetya (243324) on Tuesday October 20, 2009 @07:26AM (#29806209) Homepage Journal

      that their signature remained secret, however no one should have to put up with an organized intimidation process which is the new method of choice. Seeing the pubic exercise their opinion has so offended certain elements out there. As such these same elements intend to use intimidation while expertly avoiding stepping over the line or just not getting caught to get any big names on their to back down or pay up.

      In other words, the names should be protected based on what we know these elements will do with them. We cannot have the democratic process circumvented by threats and intimidation. I am all for treating these signatures like votes, off the public record. keep them private. If only to stop the new tactics.

      This is similar to why Unions want Card Check, to intimidate their way into power. Freedom of expression is freedom from fear

      • by Roachgod (589171) on Tuesday October 20, 2009 @07:30AM (#29806257)
        While I wish there wasn't this intimidation process... I don't think a person's rights and privileges are up for "vote". I don't want other people deciding how I can and cannot live my life - CERTAINLY when it doesn't involve them. Voting on who OTHER PEOPLE can and can't marry bothers me on a deep level, far away from whether it is 'gay' rights or 'racial' rights or... I don't know.... 'alien' rights. I am all for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Voting on other people's marriages seems an offense against all three. Against such a threat... I think anything is justified. Kudos to the intimidators for not just shooting them all.
        • by plague3106 (71849) on Tuesday October 20, 2009 @07:39AM (#29806339)

          I think you have a ways to go though before intimidation or especially violenc gets called up for use. I don't think we've quite reached that level.

          Personally I think I have great way to solve this problem; eliminate completely the concept of legal marriage. Its not needed, and the issue is causing us to waste time better spent on other work. Make it a purely religous or spiritial cermemony, that means nothing legally.

          • by XxtraLarGe (551297) on Tuesday October 20, 2009 @07:56AM (#29806499) Journal

            Personally I think I have great way to solve this problem; eliminate completely the concept of legal marriage. Its not needed, and the issue is causing us to waste time better spent on other work. Make it a purely religous or spiritial cermemony, that means nothing legally.

            That would be the ideal, but that would defeat the reason gays want marriage in the first place. If all they were looking for was a symbolic ceremony of their life together, they'd just go down to their local Unitarian Universalist building and get married. They want marriage specifically for the legal protections: so they can force employers to provide health insurance, get estate rights when their partners die, tax breaks, etc. Of course, there's no reason why much of this couldn't be done on a contractual basis in the absence of legal marriage, but the state always finds a way to mess things up and make things difficult for people.

            I'm sure that I will be modded down because it will perceived it as an anti-homosexual comment, but it's not. I believe in the equality before the law for all people, I simply don't think we should have the laws that make this a battle in the first place.

          • by mcgrew (92797) * on Tuesday October 20, 2009 @08:48AM (#29807171) Homepage Journal

            The problem isn't discrimination against gays, it's discrimination against single people whether gay or straight. As a divorced straight guy I face the same discrimination as any gay.

            Why is discrimination based on marital status legal? It's not only legal, it's institutionalized; married paople pay fewer taxes. Take away discrimination against singles and the problem of "gay marriage" goes away completely.

            Why should government have anything to do with marriage? Isn't marriage a religion thing? Doesn't the Constitution protect both religion and its absense? Government should have nothing to do with marriage. I should not need a license, for instance.

        • by Xeth (614132) on Tuesday October 20, 2009 @07:59AM (#29806525) Journal

          Marriage is, by definition, not a private institution, but a public one. Being married doesn't affect what you do inside your own home (to be taken as an idiom for things that don't affect others), it affects how society interacts with you. I therefore think it is disingenuous to claim that it is not a social issue, outside the purview of societal interest.

          That's not to say that it should be regulated, in this case or any other, but I merely wish to indicate that the question is not itself injurious, as you seem to say.

        • Statements such as these:

          "Against such a threat... I think anything is justified."

          Public condemnation and exposure is a tactic used by most groups, and particularly favored by those who support Washington Senate bill SB5688, which would institute civil unions in Washington state between persons without restriction on gender.

          Somehow, when it comes to 'outing', it doesn't feel very good after all.

          I personally believe the law permitting access to the signatures should stand. It was a petition, not a ballot.

      • by sanosuke001 (640243) on Tuesday October 20, 2009 @07:35AM (#29806309)
        Why should we make an exception for this? We already have laws to stop assault, abuse, and slander. Why do we need to make this exception to try and stop those things from happening? If someone has a problem because of this, file a complaint with the police.

        Hiding public records is how people stack votes; doing that now just because people MIGHT be annoyed with an email or a phone call goes against everything this nation is supposed to stand for. Like I said, if someone has a problem because of this, go to the police. If not, deal with it. They signed a public document, they have no right to ask for it to be protected from scrutiny.
      • by plasmacutter (901737) on Tuesday October 20, 2009 @07:48AM (#29806409)

        that their signature remained secret, however no one should have to put up with an organized intimidation process which is the new method of choice. Seeing the pubic exercise their opinion has so offended certain elements out there. As such these same elements intend to use intimidation while expertly avoiding stepping over the line or just not getting caught to get any big names on their to back down or pay up.

        In other words, the names should be protected based on what we know these elements will do with them. We cannot have the democratic process circumvented by threats and intimidation. I am all for treating these signatures like votes, off the public record. keep them private. If only to stop the new tactics.

        This is similar to why Unions want Card Check, to intimidate their way into power. Freedom of expression is freedom from fear

        If it really were a measure of public opinion they would not be so fast to cry foul and scream "intimidation".

        For one, there are laws against anything substantive (vandalism, assault, etc), and for another, if the majority of the public really DOES agree with them there should be no risk of ostracism.

        Of course, they obviously know this is NOT the case, and their efforts to conceal their signatures are no different than the white hoods the KKK used to wear.

        The reality is this referendum doesn't do anything except exploit the "squeaky wheel" phenomenon to oppress gay people. The (silent) majority of the public could care less, so they won't consider it important enough to show up at the polls, allowing the "vocal (and bigoted) minority" to disenfranchise them.

      • by AndersOSU (873247) on Tuesday October 20, 2009 @08:10AM (#29806639)

        In a democracy there are two ways to participate in politics. One is to exercise your right to vote in secret. The other is to publicly organize. A petition is not a vote, it's a public statement that "I support initiative X." As a public statement the speaker assumes the risks associated with speaking out in public - such as the possibility that your friends and neighbors will find out your opinions. Intimidation and harassment are illegal and these laws should be enforced, but petitions are public for a reason and should stay public regardless of whether or not some bad actors will do bad things. Participating publicly in politics is risky, which is why you're under no obligation to do so. If signature gathering efforts for ballot initiatives or to get a candidate on a ballot become private they risk becoming about as important as internet petitions and polls. When you sign a petition, you're literally putting your name on the line - which is what gives them the impact that they have - if it's anonymous and cannot be publicly verified no one will believe you when you say we have Y signatures. What's more these are most certainly not new tactics - the declaration of independence was essentially a petition, and the signatories certainly faced consequences for attaching their names to the document. Do you suppose that the declaration would be held in such high esteem had it been signed by BenLightning and SamTEHdrunk?

      • by jipn4 (1367823) on Tuesday October 20, 2009 @08:10AM (#29806649)

        that their signature remained secret, however no one should have to put up with an organized intimidation process which is the new method of choice

        There is nothing "new" about it: so-called "Christians" and "conservatives"--probably many of the same kind of people who have signed this petition--have been using organized intimidation of minorities for two centuries. And they haven't stopped at intimidation: they have killed, injured, and discriminated.

        Seeing the pubic exercise their opinion has so offended certain elements out there. As such these same elements intend to use intimidation while expertly avoiding stepping over the line or just not getting caught to get any big names on their to back down or pay up.

        That is outrageous. For decades, gay rights activists have put their lives on the line to fight for safety, security, acceptance, and civil rights. Many have been murdered, more beaten up merely for speaking out, and many have lost their jobs. They have been vilified and persecuted. But finally, they have been making some headway.

        Now a minority of bigots wants turn back the clock and they don't even have the decency and honesty to stand up and identify themselves when putting a referendum on the ballot?

        This is similar to why Unions want Card Check, to intimidate their way into power. Freedom of expression is freedom from fear

        This has nothing to do with "freedom of expression". These people can spew their bigotry in complete anonymity if they like; our laws and our Constitution guarantee that.

        But once they want to put a referendum before the voters, they do not have a right to do so anonymously. The public has a right to know where these kinds of referenda come from.

        The people putting this referendum on the ballot are not "the public", they are a bigoted minority. And their attempts to shield their names is like the robes of the Ku Klux Klan. Any legal issues aside, it is despicable, and it is despicable that you would defend them.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by HangingChad (677530)

        that their signature remained secret, however no one should have to put up with an organized intimidation process which is the new method of choice.

        This wasn't a ballot, I'm not sure where the expectation of privacy comes from. You could argue that trying to create a separate but equal set of rules for a minority population is also organized intimidation. It just depends on which side of the intimidation you're on.

        As it pertains gays, there do seem to be a lot of people determined to see they never g

  • Wait a minute here (Score:5, Insightful)

    by dkleinsc (563838) on Tuesday October 20, 2009 @07:24AM (#29806195) Homepage

    put the names of all people who publicly endorsed R-71 on a public, SEO-optimized website.

    So you're telling me that you can sue someone for publicly telling everyone (via a website) something you publicly told everyone?

    Look, mate, when you sign a petition, what you're doing is saying to anyone who cares to listen in the world that you endorse the views of the petition. If you aren't willing to attach your name to what the petition says, don't sign it.

    • by PhilHibbs (4537) <snarks@gmail.com> on Tuesday October 20, 2009 @07:28AM (#29806233) Homepage Journal

      Maybe they got the impression that voting was anonymous from the fact that it usually is in elections. Secret ballots are necessary for democracy to function free from intimidation - these people took part in a non-secret ballot, and now they are being intimidated, Q.E.D.

      • by quantumplacet (1195335) on Tuesday October 20, 2009 @07:37AM (#29806321)

        except they didn't go into a voting both and pull a lever or press a button. when you walk into a closed voting booth, there's a presumption of anonymity. when you sign a petition a street corner, there is not.

      • by DarkOx (621550) on Tuesday October 20, 2009 @07:47AM (#29806401) Journal

        The are not being intimidated. If having your name put on website that lists your participation in a public action counts as intimidation then virtually anything does. I also find the argument people not understanding the difference between a circulating petition and a balloted election a bit of stretch.

        Secret ballot elections make sense, because we want people to be able to vote their conscience free from social pressure. I don't think though anonymity should be an expectation when you are participating in a public debate, and a petition is a form of participation.

        • by XxtraLarGe (551297) on Tuesday October 20, 2009 @08:02AM (#29806561) Journal

          The are not being intimidated. If having your name put on website that lists your participation in a public action counts as intimidation then virtually anything does.

          So what was the point of the web site then? Would you hold the same position if an evangelical Christian organization published a web site containing the names of people who signed a pro-gay marriage petition, or would that somehow be different?

    • by ZekoMal (1404259) on Tuesday October 20, 2009 @07:36AM (#29806315)
      People who hate on gays don't want to be seen as horrible people; they're nice to gays in front of them but try to get them shut down. You know, like that psycho ex-girlfriend who meets up with your current girlfriend and convinces her you're a terrible person even though she hates the girlfriend's guts.
    • by Speare (84249) on Tuesday October 20, 2009 @07:47AM (#29806403) Homepage Journal

      Signing a petition does not mean that you agree with the views of the petitioner, it just means that you agree that the issue should be brought to a wider vote to decide the matter. I've known plenty of people who would sign pretty much any referendum or initiative in the states that have that process. In their view, it just airs more discussion and opportunities for democracy.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      No when you sign a petition you saying that you think the issue is worthy of voting on, not that you agree or disagree - only that you want the matter settled by the voters.
  • by Ritchie70 (860516) on Tuesday October 20, 2009 @07:35AM (#29806313) Journal

    An assault on civil rights, an assault on marriage, or an assault on sunshine laws and freedom of information?

    It's all about gay marriage. Neither group involved cares about any of the rest of that stuff.

    Personally, I don't get it; so long as you don't make me marry a person of the same gender against my will, why do I care what you do? Don't pretend there aren't same-sex families already; according to one of the links, 18% of same-sex couples in Washington state are raising a child under 18.

    I do have a tiny little bit of sympathy for the signers of the petition; I don't think people really understand the legal details behind the signing of a petition, and many of them many have assumed that it was as anonymous and protected as voting.

    One shouldn't take a stand that involves limiting someone else's rights but only be willing to do it anonymously. That's just chicken shit.

    And if you just shrugged and signed because your neighbor, coworker or fellow church goer asked you too without actually believing it, that's chicken shit too.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by drinkypoo (153816)

      I do have a tiny little bit of sympathy for the signers of the petition; I don't think people really understand the legal details behind the signing of a petition, and many of them many have assumed that it was as anonymous and protected as voting.

      I have none. Don't put your name on something whose ramifications you don't understand. I now ask for a copy of the privacy policy before putting my information on ANYTHING. If I don't get a good result, then I make something up (except as prohibited by law, i.e. filling out a government form.) I don't care if I'm at a video store or what.

      One shouldn't take a stand that involves limiting someone else's rights but only be willing to do it anonymously. That's just chicken shit.

      Doing it anonymously is not taking a stand.

      And if you just shrugged and signed because your neighbor, coworker or fellow church goer asked you too without actually believing it, that's chicken shit too.

      Amen to that.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by elrous0 (869638) *

      The problem is that government sponsored marriage has always been an uncomfortable and troubled fit. It essentially started as secular governments stepped in and usurped a power that had traditionally been controlled by the church (or, after the Reformation, churches). This sounded great to a lot of secular leaders (who had long resented having to concede any power to the church), but it also opened up a legal can of worms. Suddenly the state had to make laws around a traditionally religious institution; es

  • Streisand effect (Score:4, Insightful)

    by vlm (69642) on Tuesday October 20, 2009 @08:00AM (#29806545)

    So... my only real religious belief is in the Streisand effect, so someone please provide a torrent and a wikileaks link to the list of names.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect [wikipedia.org]

    Note, that some people on the list did not sign the petition, if you know what I mean. Someone could have sat down with the parish directory, or my kids elementary school family book, or my employers phone directory, or my ham radio club mailing list, etc, and "helpfully" signed me up, to "save me the time of signing myself up". I think that is the real reason they are fighting the publicity, heck, I'd file suit if I learned someone put my name on that list of ignorant hillbillys, as that would obviously defame my reputation...

  • by bumfuckedegypt (1384377) on Tuesday October 20, 2009 @08:01AM (#29806547)
    In Missouri, federal funding was issued to the ADAP program (AIDS Drug Assistance Program) to provide life giving medicine to people who could otherwise not afford the $4000 a month in medicine bills. Various groups opposed to gays and people with AIDS (including the goobers who think it all a fake disease) would often times use sunshine laws to intimidate such people who received the benefits. Meetings were held to help determine the best way to help people with the meds money and often times, the recipients of the funds were invited to attend since the decisions made impacted their benefits, health, life etc... People with these groups would find out where the meetings were with sunshine law request and then come and photograph everyone there, write down their license plates, etc... They would then publish the information on the internet and in some cases local newspapers. This led to people losing their jobs (unfortunately, in Missouri, it's legal to fire someone based on pretty much anything.) The sunshine law was used for the harassment and intimidation of people. It eventually meant that people stopped coming to meetings. Some of them had families harassed and lost everything due to this harassment. The state now just unilaterally decides for people what they can and cant have. Often turning people away that are in dire need of this medicine to stay healthy. I do believe that sunshine laws have their place but there should be limits. Using them to harass people is wrong and it should be illegal.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 20, 2009 @08:03AM (#29806571)

    I'm probably the only one who read the title as beeing about Western Australia's debat about daylight savings.

  • WTF? (Score:4, Funny)

    by SirGarlon (845873) on Tuesday October 20, 2009 @08:32AM (#29806939)

    In September, U.S. District Judge Benjamin Settle temporarily barred state officials from releasing the identities of those who signed the referendum petitions. Settle held that releasing the names could chill the First Amendment rights of petition signers.

    So what Judge Settle is saying here is that First Amendment rights mean that not only can you say whatever the hell you want, but no one is allowed to dislike you for saying it.

    Linux sucks. Software patents are vital to innovation. Comcast provides great service. Long live the RIAA! SCO was right! Don't chill my First Amendment rights!

  • Just Fear (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Fujisawa Sensei (207127) on Tuesday October 20, 2009 @08:39AM (#29807031) Journal

    These are the same people, or at least same mentality, of who live their lives in fear that the Russians are going to come over here and take their bibles away.

  • by Kate6 (895650) on Tuesday October 20, 2009 @10:26AM (#29808703) Homepage

    The important thing to know about the situation in Washington is that no one is actually looking to change that. R-71 is not in any way shape or form about gay marriage. It's about domestic partnerships. In May of 2009, Washington governor Christine Gregoire signed into law Senate Bill 5688 [wa.gov], the "everything but marriage" bill, which makes it so that within the state of Washington, domestic partnerships will have the exact same legal rights and responsibilities as married couples. Hospital visitation rights, inheritance rights, power of attorney rights, the right to adopt and raise children... All the things that two consenting adults who love each other and are genuinely committed to each other oought to have. This bill did not in any way shape or form suggest that domestic partnerships should be recognized as marriages, though. (See this article [wa.gov] and the actual text of the bill [wa.gov]).

    And before someone tries to argue with me about the right to adopt... I'd like to point out that the reality of the situation is that there's tons of kids out there growing up in foster care, and that growing up in a home with 3-4 other children you aren't related to, some of whom were taken from their parents because the parents were neglectful or abusive, is known to frequently be a very traumatic experience. Whereas being raised by a gay couple would, at most, subject you to some teasing from other children at school.

    R-71 is an attempt to overturn SB 5688. Plain and simple. It has nothing whatsoever to do with gay marriage. It is not in any way shape or form related to any religious belief. Washington State has never contemplated the issue of gay marriage. I've seen plenty of conservative literature claiming that gays "already have all the same rights" so that the "attack on traditional marriage" has to be about something other than basic human rights.

    Well, at least in Washington, it very definitely isn't. (Oregon has actually had similar legislation in place for a few years now.) Gays are in no way shape or form interested in being allowed to legally use the word "marriage" to refer to our relationships here. We're only interested in having all the equivalent secular, legal rights. And R-71 is a vote about whether or not we should have those rights. But of course... There's a highly deceptive campaign going on with regards to it... And many of the people going in to vote on it may in fact have been led to falsely believe that they're voting on something related to gay marriage.

  • by moxley (895517) on Tuesday October 20, 2009 @10:29AM (#29808769)

    The thing about this that really makes it so sad is that a lot of the time the politicians and well known religious spokesmen who are the MOST outspoken against ga rights, and the most fervent in their anti-gay votes and speeches are, more often than not, actually gay themselves, but are in the closet and can't deal with it.

    I don't think that making public records available is a threat. If the people are that concerned about it being known that they support discrimination, then maybe they shouldn;t have signed it.

    It's not like people are making threats. Now if this was private information that was NOT public and it was being released, I would have a problem with that.

6 Curses = 1 Hexahex

Working...