One other consideration is that signing a ballot petition is much more like making a campaign contribution than like voting. The former is public, the latter is not.

After opponents of Ref 71 sought to publish the names of those who signed the petition, a local provocateur named Phillip Irvin, who works for Seattle City Light, demanded to see the meeting minutes and know the names of city employees who attend a gay rights/affinity group on their lunch hours. A judge has, so far, ruled in favor of releasing the minutes but not the names (on privacy grounds.)

Irvin's rationale for seeking the action is that city money may be used to support the group's existence and he thinks taxpayers should know where their money is going. Fine. But why do the names need to be disclosed? The prevailing wisdom here is that it's nothing more than an attempt to out city employees who may be closeted.

But Irvin offers a more... interesting... explanation:

Irvin, a 58-year-old power analyst for Seattle City Light who said he believed there was a "secret gay organization" that could be engaging in covert actions against him, did like the judge's ruling

The group is city-funded and city-supported, and "we can't find out who they are," he said.

Once gay people dreaded being arrested and having their names published in the paper, because it might lead to harassment, losing a job, etc..

Now opponents of gay rights are afraid of being "outed" for much the same reason.

Some big businesses routinely give money to anti-gay causes. There is now a nationwide boycott against companies who gave to CA's Prop 8 campaign. In this case, the right wing is trying to get a court to "protect them" from legal criticism of their political actions. We have a right to know which of our neighbors and friends support these despicable anti-equality actions.

With petitions supporting equality, we would have safety in numbers if more than just LGBT citizens and a few allies sign petitions for equal rights. Most of the country believes in basic equal rights, yet many straight people still won't take a stand for equal rights for LGBT families. So we end up screwing around with this issue year after year while Republicans use it to fundraise and get elected. We're going to have equality someday, so why wait another 10-15 years while pumping a little more life blood into the Republican Party?

If we repeal DOMA and change federal rules to recognize the legal contracts in the six states that allow same-sex marriage, we destroy the GOP's biggest nationwide GOTV strategy. Each state can still decide if they're going to allow or prevent same-sex marriage (states rights & wrongs!), but gays can simply travel to states that allow it and thereby protect their families regardless of where they live.

The issue here is just the opposite from the petitioners claim that making the list public could chill free speech. The Free Speech clause of the Constitution is there to protect one's ability to go into the public square and express oneself (within some recognized bounds). Private speech, what I say to myself or others in my home isn't included, because it doesn't require protection.

Free Speech applies to public expressions, and that has two components...the right to freely speak and the right to freely listen.

Public Speech, to me, is that speech delivered in a truly public venue, "the town square (literal or virtual and including legally sanctioned petitions for legislative action)." You are speaking there with the specific intent of public expression, and with a reasonable expectation your speech will be heard. In fact, being heard is generally the reason to conduct public speech. This is the type of speech specifically protected by the free speech clause in the Constitution.

There are two sides to "free speech." You have a right to take to the public square and speak freely, but I have a right to go to the public square and witness/hear your expression. You are not entitled to go into the public square, but demand that all others be kept beyond ear-shot.

This is what I think is going on in the case of the R-71 supporters, and shame on this Judge for even issuing a temporary restraining order. I believe the minute the R-71 supporters invoked a "free speech" claim of any kind, they immediately ended any expectation of privacy for the signers. In effect, what they have asked, and the court has granted, is the ability to express themselves in the public square, but have every other citizen held out of ear-shot.