That the donors names are public is a pretty thin read to support a politician sending out names of his opponents and suggesting his supporters intimidate them, but it you’re okay with the precedent, just don’t get bent when it gets turned back on you, or if one of the intimidatees feels threatened and doesn’t react well.
babylonbee.com
That’s true, but Castro went beyond that, accusing them of supporting hatred against Hispanics as part of it. That’s a whole different thing.
Bet they’re Trump donors so if one or two of them get curb stomped, they brought it on themselves…
more than once someone here published a book and experienced retaliatory bad reviews on Amazon.com after they made it known they had published the book.
People do have that right, but free speech also extends to what Castro said. I agree it was a deflection from any issue, and indicative of the very pettiness he condemns, but when people make political speech, in the form of contributions, they are not immune from the reactions of other.
Are you comfortable with elected politicians using this information to attempt to intimidate citizens exercising their Constitutional rights? If one of these donors gets the snot kicked out of him or has his business burned down, do you think Castro should be held criminally liable?
As I said in another post"
That’s the problem.
I was seeing if this was an honest presentation, so I checked the actual tweet.
Freedom of Speech from the USA Constitution has never protected us from the reactions of people to that speech. I dont think such protection is even logically possible given that reactions to Constitutionally protected speech include more Constitutionally protected speech.
Constitutional free speech is only about limiting the actions of government to speech. Where things get confusing is that government employees also have Constitutional free speech (public schools can find themselves in confusing situations because of this).
Any information that someone else knows could cause a reaction. There is no protection from this.
It is frowned upon. But there are not federal laws against it. You may have local laws that further restrict what a government employee can say while executing their duties as a government employee.
I know of one who has complained about the hatred and boycotts against Chik-fil-A because of the political contributions of that owner, but then will swore off Starbucks for the same reason. Meh. It is okay to donate to whoever one wants, as it is to disassociate and not support those whose donations we do not like. In such a divided nation as America, it will probably wash most of the time. For one person that wants nothing to do with someone on Castro’s list, someone will support that businessman because he is on that list.
I agree. It would depend.
Sure there is. Your employer can’t discriminate against you based on your political donations or party affiliation. In the 1960’s in the South, men had to have a certain party affiliation to be hired by employers. My grandparents age group couldn’t register to vote under a different party affiliation if they wanted a chance at being employed.
I didn’t say it was illegal, but that it violated the spirit of our political process. I expect that type of behavior from Trump’s camp, not from Castro. The democrats are quickly becoming what they had been in the past.
I had a coworker that were quasi-against Chick Fila-A (I say “quasi” because they were pretty friendly when Chick Fil-A considered a contract with our company). I decided early on not to tell them that I enjoyed my time at Camp Windshape as a child (the Windshape organization was started by the founder of Chick Fil-A. The founder was also an active member of the community in which I grew up). I speculate them knowing that I feel okay about Chick Fil-A to cause some slight abrasiveness in day to day interactions.
In interest of truth, I point out the he did not make this accusation.