CY, You state:

But providing the private addresses and work and private phone numbers of private citizens—even those that are thrust into the public by circumstance . . . .

I'm not sure that being the plaintiff in a lawsuit against a municipality is a "circumstance" that should allow one to remain anonymous. In fact, since all lawsuits are public, I'm not sure any plaintiff should be allowed to be anonymous - with possible exceptions for rape victims and children. If you are going to challenge a whole community and how it does something, or one of the communities traditions, why should you be allowed not to face up to the community?

If you are going to be the plaintiff for a case by the ACLU, you need to expect some attention. I don't think, based on my understanding of what happened here (i.e., it is my understanding that the name and address of the plaintiff in the case was provided online, and that this is what people are complaining about), that stoptheaclu.org or stoptheaclu.com did anything wrong.

Why should I get to attack a community's tradtions, or community's values through a lawsuit but be allowed to remain anonymous? How is that fair to anyone?

I also have never understood people crying about being "outed" online, such as Armando at DailyKos. Sure, I prefer to remain somewhat anonymous b/c I don't want my real email being filled up w/ spam, etc., based on a comment on a blog. But, were I to be found out, and outed, I would understand that is the risk I am taking. Moreover, were I to actually keep a blog, or be a serious, repititve diarist, a la Armando, I would probably expect my identity to come out at some point. After all, isn't the identity of a popular anonymous blogger "news."

Moreover, if you are saying what you believe, and you are maintaining some sense of decorum and dignity, then you should not fear "outing." AFter all, despite what the leftists would have you believe, this is not communist Cuba where people are arrested, tortured, and killed for having an opinion.

I'm not saying I would automatically out someone who wished to remain anonymous, indeed I probably would not unless the person's identity affected the issue or their credibility in a significant way. But, that does not necessarily mean that "outing" someone is morally wrong.

- GB

GB,

People are not always rational beings. They are resistant to change, often even if that change is for the better. Accordingly, they recoil, or sometimes lash out against agents of change. It could be an simple as avoiding or ostracizing those who would advocate change, but in far more instances than we would like to admit, it amounts to intimidation, violence, and in extreme cases, warfare.

The people in this circumstance were a family, and the children, in particular, were affected. They were exposed to religious persecution, only very thinly-veiled as I understand the case.

Nedd could have only revealed that families name, address and phone number hoping for some sort of retaliation against them. There simply is no other reason for his actions, and his act was completely indefensible.

Ironically, some of the very same people who agree with Nedd in this instance, were livid with rage when liberals exposed the private phone number and address of Michelle Malkin in an attempt to intimidate her into silence.

In both instances, intimidation was the sole reason to release this personal information.

This is NEVER morally acceptable.

If you are the plaintiff in a lawsuit against a municipality, in an effort to change something the majority of the municipality supports, you have just made yourself a public figure. How is trying to do this by judicial fiat any different then running for office on a platform of getting rid of the cross? In fact, I would argue what the plaintiff's are doing is more cowardly, as they are not seeking to change people's minds and win a majority vote, but seeking to force everyone to have to obey their viewpoint.

Also, why should the "agents of change" be immune from the community they seek to change? You know, for thousands of years, public shame and ostricism worked wonders for society. We are now in a society where there is almost no such thing, and people feel like they can do whatever they want. Having to suffer the consequences of your actions is not such a bad thing.

Also, the left is very, very quick to engage in these tactics, so I have no sympathy for all of their crying about publishing such info.

Perhaps the plaintiffs should have considered their children before they decided to be plaintiffs in this lawsuit? Or are they not accountable at all for their actions?

I would point out that very often, in newspapers articles, people will be referred to as "so and so of Elm St." While not giving the exact address, these reports narrow it down to within a few houses for anyone caring to look.