Reply #53: I didn't support... [View All]

[tx_dem41]

the "right to publish personal details about the BBC staff, LEADING to threats and phone calls. You're making a leap of logic that clearly was not made by me. In fact, everyone on that thread said that threats were over the line, including the DUer-whose-name-must-not-be-mentioned.

What several people on the thread did STATE, was that protesting at someone's house (on pubic property), regardless of one's conduct was wrong (and a few even said illegal since they supported the suppression of the site). Having witnessed several such organized, well-behaved, effective protests against politicians and CEOs of companies who were into wrongdoing, I would never go that far as to say they are flat-out wrong and especially, illegal.

As to your question:

"If that website hadn't published this information, do you think these callers would have been able to make these threats? "

My answer, I don't know. But, to find the website criminally or civilly liable, one would have to prove intent. How one would do that I don't know. But, freedom of speech (in the U.S.) demands such proof.