Re:Search the DNC email database
by tanderson92 on Friday July 22, 2016 @03:55PM
(#12146321)
I would say that national political organizations conspiring to exploit bigotry at the ballot box (which you correctly note is allowed) is a civil rights violation. It's the actions of the formal organization to promote bigotry vs the actual voters themselves acting as they see fit.
While I agree in this case it's probably bigotry they would be exploiting, how do we differentiate that from an informed view of how someone's thoughts on religion (or birth control, or the belief in evolution, or how to deal with Israeli/Palestinian relations, or trade agreements) might translate into other areas of office? If you think they don't matter, it's bigotry. If you think they do, such as inform as to the character of the person, the personality of the person, how they deal with conflict, etc, then it's not. How to we objectively differentiate between things that matter and things that don't?
Re:Search the DNC email database
by tanderson92 on Friday July 22, 2016 @04:57PM
(#12146708)
You raise some good points. I'll grant that this is probably not an area where you would want to create legislation or prosecute the violations. I still contend they are violations: just ones we do not necessarily want to set an example of pursuing,
I agree, and I think a good solution that works (or doesn't, as the public sees fit) is to expose the behavior, which is what we have here. We're having a discussion about it, and agree it's poor behavior, and if it's poor enough or deemed problematic enough, it may make headlines and hurt rather than help the people involved. Again, we have an instance of more (hopefully correct and verified) information being released so the public can do with it what they deem prudent. Thus, we have democracy in action (even when that action may be to choose inaction).
Are you talking about political agents being unethical (to which I say, "duh"), or are we talking about what you previously stated, "conspiring to commit a civil rights violation, or exploit one" ? Those are very different things.
People have a right to vote for a candidate as they see fit, based on all the information they have at their disposal. That's a core tenet of democracy. While I would prefer people not use religious views of candidates in most cases, there are cases where I would definitely like to know (for example, if the candidate believes the world will end within the year, I think that's probably the most relevant information in a presidential candidate you can know). While self serving, I can't see the action as purely negative, as it would be increasing true information to the public (as opposed to attack ads that insinuate unverified information).