Freedom of speech–unless you annoy the wrong people.
by Maureen Mullarkey
Strange times we live in when it takes a ballot initiative to confirm the definition of http://www.wvwnews.net/story.php?id=6112.
In November, the San Francisco Chronicle published the names and home addresses of everyone who donated money in support of California’s Proposition 8 marriage initiative. All available information, plus the amount donated, was broadcast. http://www.wvwnews.net/story.php?id=6080.
Emails started coming. Heavy with epithets and ad hominems, most in the you-disgust-me vein. Several accused me, personally, of denying the sender his single chance at happiness after a life of unrelieved oppression and second-class citizenship. Some were anonymous but a sizable number were signed, an indication of confidence in collective clout that belied howls of victimhood. New York’s Gay City News asked for an interview because I was “one of only four New Yorkers who contributed more than $500.”I ignored the request, trashed the emails, and forgot about them. But the West Coast bureau chief of the New York Daily News did not forget.
One night in early February, I drove home to find two cars, two men, waiting for me, unannounced, in the dark. Reporters for the Daily News, they were publishing a story on me and Prop 8 the next day and wanted a live quotation. Serious interviews are arranged ahead of time. Besides, I had filed enough newspaper pieces on deadline to know that copy is well into the can at 7 P.M. This was intimidation, not fact-gathering.
Where is the story, I asked, if I have not said anything? The response was: “We have documents.” Sound familiar? For half a second, I thought of saying that Prop 8 left intact all the legal advantages of civil union. It took nothing away. But I was too surprised by having been singled out. After a few heated words–none of them equal to what, in hindsight, I wish I had said–I went into the house.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/016/252zsbwa.asp?pg=1