You order flovent can buy a sharps container online or ask your doctor, generic zithromax side effects and alcohol pharmacist, or health insurance company where to get one. GET order generic xalatan STARTED WITH WALMART HEALTH VIRTUAL CARE HealthTap aims to give alesse (ovral l) people an ongoing relationship with one healthcare professional, connecting people discount triamterene to the same doctor each time. If a person is buy cheap diovan online concerned about using glyphosate for health or environmental reasons, they amikacin no prescription may choose an alternative weed killer. AL amyloidosis may have acomplia without prescription a greater impact on the outlook for people with smoldering buy cheap cialis online usa MM than symptomatic MM. They also agree that people can aldactone online withdraw consent at any time, for any reason, with no order atenolol negative consequences. If a person with a disability wishes to buy zyprexa online add prescription drug coverage, Part D, to their Medicare parts cheapest pyrantel pamoate A and B, they may do so. People may also lipitor pills use laxatives to encourage bowel movements, but the NIDDK only generic atrovent info recommends using these in the short term. If your doctor has.

How far is it fair to go to put the spotlight on those opposing you by making public information about them readily accessible? Supporters of gay marriange in California have taken public information — the addresses of those supporters of the gay marriage ban who gave more than $100 — and put it on an easy-to-access map. You can look at the map and see who in your neighborhood gave money to help get the ban passed. Or, who in my neighborhood.

The use of the Internet for public shaming — or is it intimidation? — is not new. The Nuremberg Files was the most troubling example of the genre — listing the addresses of doctors who performed abortions, and graying out their names if they were murdered. The site also listed where their children went to school.

The gay marriage advocates haven’t gone that far, but they have gone far enough to cause some real discomfort. The New York Times reports that to fight back, an attempt will be made to change the law so that the addresses of donors of as little as $100 are no longer public information.

Who has the better of the free speech argument here — those who feel intimidated, and hence feel their speech is being chilled; or those who just want to publish on the Web in a convenient form information that has long been considered public anyway?

This entry was posted on Monday, January 19th, 2009 at 2:43 pm and is filed under Social computing, The explosion, The Internet and the Web. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.