"Why don't you come out of the henhouse?" says the fox; "Is it because you're just CHICKEN?"
In today's forum we have a person who has admittedly accepted substantial compensation from the loathesome ones ( for providing information which they deemed useful in their litigation onslaught) demanding that people reveal their identities, and impugning their honor if they fail to comply.
I guess once you start taking money for "naming names," you realize there may be an untapped career opportunity. However, by any definition -- dictionary, vernacular, or legal --accepting money for services makes you an affiliate of their organization. Obviously, if you can encourage more disclosures, and get more identities, your paymaster will likely be more than willing to show his gratitude in the traditional way. Once you're bought and paid for, its fair to presume that you stay bought.
The desire for confidentiality is in no way inconsistent with being justifiably proud of participating in a worthwhile cause.
Before the civil war, helping runaway slaves could subject a person to criminal prosecution. (recall the Dred Scott decision). Yet there were a few brave folks on the underground railroad who helped slaves escape the South and flee to Canada. Today's inquisitor would have you believe that their efforts were not honorable and decent, simply on the ground that they didn't advertise their identity.
In my opinion, the conditions to which people are subjected in extra-judicial seizure and incarceration programs are a fair topic for public debate -- even if the program is run by a for-profit, commercial entity. Revelations of treatment conditions which led to reform of mental health hospitals in the 19th and early 20th century are an analagous example. (Less litigious times, thankfully). Even if unpleasant and messy, such discourse (including the discourse on this very forum) is vital, and should NOT be limited to those who are willing to bear the expense of defending SLAPP suits from our inquisitor's employer.
[ This Message was edited by: scottT on 2004-01-04 11:17 ]
[ This Message was edited by: scottT on 2004-01-04 11:26 ]