Slog

News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

Monday, November 9, 2009

Questions From Gary Randall

Posted by Dominic Holden on Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 12:33 PM

Gary Randall, the carpetbagging, tax-evading loser behind the campaign to Reject Referendum 71, thinks I'm the enemy of freedom and he calls me out today on his blog. Randall is upset that people who supported his campaign are subject to the same disclosure laws as every other campaign in state history. (I took advantage of those laws earlier this year to ask folks who donated to Randall's campaign why they did it.) And this measure of equality—subjecting bigoted campaigns to equal disclosure law is as sinful as granting gays equal rights, apparently—motivates him to beg the courts to hide their names and addresses. Otherwise these straight folks will be subject to harassment. Straight-bashing. Really.

Randall has a few questions:

Dominic Holden, from a homosexual newspaper in Seattle, has harvested names and addresses from the PDC donor disclosure forms submitted by Protect Marriage Washington. He called the people at their homes demanding to know, "Why do you hate me?" He then posted their full name, where they live and some of their comments in the newspaper.

You tell me. Is that harassment? Does that have a chilling effect on their freedom to participate in the political process? Does that compromise their expression of free speech?

Here is my (possibly) chilling article. Names of donors, which (possibly) compromise freedom of speech because they're already public, are on the state's campaign disclosure site. Reading them is (possibly) bad for democracy!

But I just have to say, none of the people I spoke to "compromise[d] their expression of free speech": They got more free speech because I printed what they had to say. It's just that what they had to say revealed Randall's supporters as hateful, misinformed bigots.

Share via

  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Newsvine
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Email
 

Comments (48) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
Akbar Fazil 1
Dom, your "questions" link is no good.
Posted by Akbar Fazil on November 9, 2009 at 12:36 PM
Dominic Holden 2
@ 1) Thanks. Should be shipshape now.
Posted by Dominic Holden on November 9, 2009 at 12:42 PM
Loveschild 3
@1 None of Dom's assholery doings are ever good. From his warped reasoning to his temper tantrums.
Posted by Loveschild http://www.marriagedebate.com on November 9, 2009 at 12:45 PM
--MC 4
Chuh, having their names printed is not going to deter the haters from signing those petitions. It might deter them if they thought their nonsensical ideas were going to be displayed like a vivisectioned rat in a public forum, though.
Why is it that those fools can't make the connection between speaking their minds and having other people disagree with them?
Posted by --MC on November 9, 2009 at 12:49 PM
Cracker Jack 5
Did you see that Mr. Stickney is now bucking for Eastern Washington to secede (or succeed as he so eloquently puts it) from the state?

Growing up in the Yakima Valley, I often heard discussions---passionate at times, about the possibility of the central and eastern part of the state succeeding from Washington, forming a new state and the people I grew up around would have called the new state, "Lincoln". Most of those folks are dead now, but I still hear the idea from time to time.


Can we have him arrested for treason yet?
Posted by Cracker Jack on November 9, 2009 at 12:51 PM
Jenny from the Block 6
Ha @5,

Using his words, the people who "succeed" from central and eastern washington usually find themselves on the western half of the state or in some other metropolitan area.

;)
Posted by Jenny from the Block on November 9, 2009 at 12:54 PM
7
I would love for central/eastern Washington to secede and form their own state, but that's not feasible due to the politics behind additional senate/house seats.

But, they could just join Idaho, right? Or is Yakima too hippie radical bleeding heart liberal for Idaho?
Posted by Join Idaho on November 9, 2009 at 12:56 PM
reverend dr dj riz 8
dom.. you got lc to chime in , so you must be doing something right.
Posted by reverend dr dj riz on November 9, 2009 at 12:59 PM
9
Let's move on - we won. Why would anyone bother to read his site? Tons of free time?

And calling campaigns can go both ways - I don't want a single call from them .... under any guise.

By the way, the more you talk about this guy the bigger his image gets - let him blow into oblivion where he belongs.

Signed: Geoff, Coffe Guy
Posted by Coffee Guy on November 9, 2009 at 1:00 PM
10
Let 'em go. They'll miss our money.
Posted by pox on November 9, 2009 at 1:00 PM
Cato the Younger Younger 11
Dom, if the Stranger is a homosexual newspaper then I demand more man on man butt sex on every page!!!

And how can a paper be homo or hetro anyway? Can newspapers actually do it?!?!
Posted by Cato the Younger Younger on November 9, 2009 at 1:05 PM
Baconcat 12
@3: So, how are those ballot returns looking, LC?
Posted by Baconcat on November 9, 2009 at 1:06 PM
Will in Seattle 13
um, is this a homosexual newspaper? cause I think most readers (even on SLOG) are straight but not narrow ...
Posted by Will in Seattle http://www.facebook.com/WillSeattle on November 9, 2009 at 1:06 PM
LovesChoad 14
@3: Temper tanturms?

Pot, meet kettle.

And that's an ugly, dowdy red dress your female icon has on.
Posted by LovesChoad on November 9, 2009 at 1:07 PM
john t 15
These are the people who believe that "free speech" means "freedom from opposition", and therefore if you respond to their opinions with disagreement, you're infringing on their right to free speech. So of course it absolutely makes sense that printing and disseminating their opinions (which TOTALLY UNFAIRLY exposes their opinions to disagreement) has a chilling effect on free speech per their definition of "free".
Posted by john t on November 9, 2009 at 1:19 PM
TVDinner 16
@14: Nice work!
Posted by TVDinner http:// on November 9, 2009 at 1:24 PM
17
Good going, Dom. Thanks for doing that. I think it's awesome.

also, @14, freakin awesome. I almost didn't catch the parody of your icon/handle.
Posted by shaneleopard on November 9, 2009 at 1:27 PM
Akbar Fazil 18
@Loveschild. Once again your ignorant cuntery shows through.

I was merely letting Dom know that the link he posted was not a valid link (the address was mucked up)

sheesh
Posted by Akbar Fazil on November 9, 2009 at 1:29 PM
LovesChoad 19
@16 & 17,

Thanks...I'm not going away any time soon.
Posted by LovesChoad on November 9, 2009 at 1:32 PM
20
SO SO SO HOMO
SO HOMO
SO BROMO
SO HOMO
WOOT WOOT, EL HOMO, EL HORNO, EL AUTO!

SOMETIMES IT IS IMPERTINENT TO FUCK WITH LANGUAGE AND SEMIOTIX AND SHIT. NOT RELEVANT, BUT WITHIN THE DIALOGUE THAT WE WILL NEVER HAVE.

HEY HOMO NEWS GUY, WILL U BE IN NORWEST QUEERNESS RETROSPECTIVE? I WILL NUTT SMOKE U OUT THO. H8 STONGER ACTIVISTS.
Posted by LaRiiiiM0RrrHAwtiiii696969 on November 9, 2009 at 1:32 PM
Sargon Bighorn 21
"from a homosexual newspaper in Seattle," Seattle Gay News is REALLY gunna be mad now.
Posted by Sargon Bighorn on November 9, 2009 at 1:43 PM
LovesChoad 22
re 20:

Can Slog automagically refuse to post any comments that are all in caps? Nobody reads them anyway.
Posted by LovesChoad on November 9, 2009 at 1:51 PM
sidereal 23

a homosexual newspaper in Seattle


What exactly is he implying? That The Stranger has sex with other newspapers? Does he mean each individual copy is engaging in newspaper-on-newspaper shenanigans? Certainly they get piled up on top of each other in a profane mound of seething, tumescent newsprint, in which my current copy was no doubt the lucky Pierre.

Or does he mean that The Stranger has a newsgathering organization is engaging in sex with other newspapers? The Times? Ew. Is it possible to have newspaper-on-newspaper sex with the PI now that it's gone online-only, or is that the newspaper equivalent of Internet chat rooms?

Really, I think the Weekly is the only pick of the sad bunch around here, and I encourage The Stranger to think sincerely about gay marrying that upstanding paper.
Posted by sidereal on November 9, 2009 at 1:58 PM
Baconcat 24
@23: 4 words for you: Writhing mass of Blethens.
Posted by Baconcat on November 9, 2009 at 2:00 PM
johnyawl 25
@7

Washington east of the Cascades can join with Oregon east of the Cascades to form one state, while Washington west of the Cascades can join with Oregon west of the Cascades. We still have 50 states, and 100 senators, and the seats in the House will be proportioned between the two based on population. They can call their state anything they want; the rest of us will call it third world.
Posted by johnyawl on November 9, 2009 at 2:01 PM
26
Loveschild, I'm used to you having your head up your ass. But you don't usually resort to foul language (like I do). What happened? Was your soft and eloquent bigotry no longer satisfying?
Posted by RDM on November 9, 2009 at 2:09 PM
Loveschild 27
@12 To you fine I'm sure. To me, ME looks better.

For the immediate future DC looks very promissing, so do a couple of other states.

So take your 'win' for now, while the family keeps on harvesting its fruits of love and values with humility, thru all remaining states and i'll humbly do my part to educate those that are not clear on what each option presented before them means for the future of our families, neighborhoods, states and our nation.
Posted by Loveschild http://www.marriagedebate.com on November 9, 2009 at 2:19 PM
Geni 28
If eastern WA and eastern OR "succeed", I think we can call them Mississippi 2.0. I'd LOVE to keep the tax revenues generated on the west side ON the west side.
Posted by Geni on November 9, 2009 at 2:26 PM
Baconcat 29
@27: In DC, it's a violation of their standing law to put anything like marriage equality to a vote and any move to that effect will be shot down in court, in New Jersey there's enough support to overturn Governor Christie's potential executive order, in New York, the votes are lining up pretty quickly and in Iowa, the legislature has finally sealed off any hope for a vote until at least 2014.

In Rhode Island, all but the governor support marriage equality, so there's that one.

Also, in D.C., a coalition representing congregations that make the majority of church-going residents has stood in support of marriage equality. They are led by a couple who actually lives in Washington D.C., rather than the Bishop Harry Jackson, who lives more than 10 miles from the District's boundaries.
Posted by Baconcat on November 9, 2009 at 2:30 PM
Hernandez 30
@26 Do I have to spell it out for you? Loveschild. Is. Not. A. Real. Person. At some point, the anonymous troll (or group of anonymous trolls) that posts under the "Loveschild" profile is going to slip up and produce inconsistencies, like the foul language here. It has to be somewhat difficult to accurately portray a seething bigot 100% of the time if you're not actually a seething bigot.
Posted by Hernandez on November 9, 2009 at 2:30 PM
michael strangeways 31
it's pretty fucking gay.
Posted by michael strangeways http://strangewayssideshow.blogspot.com/ on November 9, 2009 at 2:33 PM
michael strangeways 32
ecce homo, loveschild and mr poe are all the same person...haven't you idiots figured that out yet?
Posted by michael strangeways http://strangewayssideshow.blogspot.com/ on November 9, 2009 at 2:37 PM
Baconcat 33
@32: Alas, we've done the "come out, come out, wherever you are" thing loudly enough that most people should understand by now. It was me, Kim and maybe Dominic got in on it? "Tried" to get Loveschild to come out to Slog Happy and very visibly failed.

So don't expect much in the way of people coming to christ on this one. But it's always fun to have a bogeyman.
Posted by Baconcat on November 9, 2009 at 2:43 PM
34
These people are like the modern KKK, fighting to keep their hoods on.

I would like to take this moment to formally make fun of Loveschild, as I believe she said in a previous post that there were way too many of her people in this state for R-71 to pass. HA HA, you lost.
Posted by Brandon J. on November 9, 2009 at 2:50 PM
Will in Seattle 35
@30 for the off topic yet incredibly insightful win.

Mallahan for the fail. At 5 pm today. Be there!
Posted by Will in Seattle http://www.facebook.com/WillSeattle on November 9, 2009 at 2:55 PM
36
@28 Eastern WA and Eastern OR succeeding would lead two more conservative senators, not good. Better to have them annexed by Idaho. If Idaho would not take them we might have to sweeten the pot and throw in Lewis and Clark Counties, maybe even Skamania and Cowlitz. Either way, no loss!
Posted by ratcityreprobate on November 9, 2009 at 3:00 PM
37
@25, 28. Right now we libruls control four of four senate seats for WA and OR. MS2 would certainly put wingnuts in office. Let's leave it as it. E WA and E OR are free to join ID, though.
Posted by Thomas Guy on November 9, 2009 at 3:05 PM
rob! 38
The visual of western Washegon vs. eastern Orington is too good to resist, providing the border can be jiggered to give that whole yin-yang/69-ing thing that Vermont and New Hampshire have going on.
Posted by rob! on November 9, 2009 at 3:30 PM
Loveschild 39
@29 With the help of the Almighty as he allowed in ME, the people of D.C, NJ will be allowed to exercise just as all others have their right to decide what the institution of marriage needs to be in their society. D.C overwhelmingly favors one man and one woman as being marriage and I'm fairly confident that NJ does also. No matter how much obstructionists like you want to silence them they will prevail just as thirty one other states have.

I'm not worried about NY because gay marriage has been repelled before and the people of the state are very clearly against it, any imposition by the governor will end up causing such a storm that it would have the opposite effect of prompting a constitutional amendment, which wouldn't be such a bad thing come to think of it. It wouldn't be prompted by us but by your side so think very carefully about what you want to impose on us because it could backfire on you.

The people of this nation are more sophisticated and well informed than what your side thinks, you just despise their morals and values and therefor want to silence them. That's what you want tho, not what will happen.

The people will be allowed to vote as our Constitution demands, no matter what you say, no matter what illegal tactics your side deploys, no matter what intimidation you unleash on them....that might've worked in WA but thankfully the rest of the nation as exemplified by ME and all the other 31 states is not WA, and don't have to put up with the silencing grip that King county has on the state. We the people will vote, against all odds, for our families for our future, We will.
Posted by Loveschild http://www.marriagedebate.com on November 9, 2009 at 4:49 PM
kim in portland 40
We the people will vote, against all odds and lies, for all families, for the future of every Americans, for equality, for justice, for compassion. Indeed, we will.
Posted by kim in portland http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hPpCxY05dqs on November 9, 2009 at 5:18 PM
kim in portland 41
rewind:

every American,
Posted by kim in portland http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hPpCxY05dqs on November 9, 2009 at 5:19 PM
42
@LOVESCHILD

HAY WHUT IF MY COMP WUZ BROKEN ITS NOT THIS IS A STYLE BUT HEY U GOTTA CONSIDER AND MORE IMPORTANT IZ SLOGGEEE CODE MONKS LIKELY CAN'T WRITE GUT PARSER AND WAVE AND NUMBS SO IT WULD BE KOMPLICADO BUT DON'T WORRY I HEAR UR PLEA SUMDAY I CHANGE LIFE IS BORING AND LONG AND DEATH IZ YUUMMMMMMMMZ.
Posted by LaRiiiiM0RrrHAwtiiii696969 on November 9, 2009 at 6:32 PM
Free Lunch 43
I agree that the names should be made public.

But really, Dominic, publishing names and neighborhoods in the article? You crossed a line there, and that line is giving the hysterical something to call harassment and not look hysterical doing so.

Unless, of course, you got their permission before publishing, like any actual journalist would. Otherwise, doing so was harmful to your own cause, unnecessary for the article itself, and childishly spiteful in appearance.
Posted by Free Lunch on November 9, 2009 at 8:31 PM
curtisp 44
Mr. Holden works for a "Homosexual Newspaper". I am terribly jelous of him even though I am not a homosexual.
Posted by curtisp on November 9, 2009 at 9:20 PM
curtisp 45
There is a very strange person on this blog with love in their name referring to the Almighty. I am very familiar with this person called The Almighty. He has a huge head. Best not to expect any help from him. His head is just too big.

One more thing; the Constitution is meant to protect the minority from the majority. This is important to remember in a world occupied by The Almighty who’s head is just so goddamned huge.
Posted by curtisp on November 9, 2009 at 9:41 PM
kim in portland 46
Hey Loveschild,

You lie what a surprise.

Remember this quote of yours from Nov. 4, 2009?

"Nov 4 Loveschild commented on The Catholic Church vs. Gay Equality.
@1 By the way people like Savage are crying foul you'd believe that they were the underdogs. The same story in WA, the funneling of dollars from Hollywood and SF poured in the gay side. But make no mistake the grassroots mobilization with close to little funds was made by the pro-family side.

In the end what counts, is the family, neighbor and good people who make a conscience decision to uphold the family such as the good people in Maine did.

They have taught us all a great lesson of perseverance and courage. And I'm just happy to have played a small minuscule role in the defense of values that Mainers of all religious affiliations (not only catholics) hold dear."
(http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archive…)

The list is linked right here, where are those big donors from San Francisco and Hollywood that were funneling money into the gay side in Washington? I'll tell you where. In your imagination. Your bearing false witness imagination.

Nice job, Ms. Pious. You know how to live up to your values, morals and religious affiliation.

From here on out I don't trust a word you type.
Posted by kim in portland http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hPpCxY05dqs on November 9, 2009 at 9:52 PM
TheRain 47
Without Seattle tax money, Eastern Washington would be Western Appalachia.

I say that as a resident of Spokane.
Posted by TheRain on November 9, 2009 at 10:13 PM
48
@47 - amen. It's already northern Utah as it is.
Posted by this guy I know in Spokane on November 11, 2009 at 4:23 PM

Add a comment

 

All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC
1535 11th Ave (Third Floor), Seattle, WA 98122
Contact Info | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use