[autoexec]

> The last check on power is murdering politicians in their homes?

You said murder, but there are plenty of valid reasons that the public should know who holds positions of power and where they live that don't involve violence of any kind.

Protest is an essential freedom we have and it's perfectly valid to do it outside of the homes of those we have put in power. It's also useful to have that information when investigating fraud and corruption.

[anonymous908213]

I don't think there is any reason to protest outside people's personal residences. People can protest at a government building, or a public square, or somewhere intentionally disruptive that isn't implicitly aimed at intimidating a public servant. Especially given that protests can turn violent, having a mob outside a specific individual's house is reckless and can quickly escalate in the wrong way. I think it's worth noting that the people protesting won't always be people you agree with. People protest both sides of a given cause. Perhaps you think it is justified to form an intimidation mob for your cause, but would you feel the same way about the opposing side of the issue doing the same? For a civil society to flourish, I think there needs to be a common understanding that there are limits to how people should conduct themselves.

> It's also useful to have that information when investigating fraud and corruption.

This is the purview of journalists, police, and independent investigative boards. We do not need random unqualified people stalking politicians to uncover fraud. I'm not sure I've ever heard of a case where that a random nobody ended up uncovering fraud or corruption by stalking, but I have heard of dozens of cases of public servants being targeted and murdered in their homes.

[autoexec]

> I don't think there is any reason to protest outside people's personal residences. People can protest at a government building, or a public square, or somewhere intentionally disruptive that isn't implicitly aimed at intimidating a public servant.

All protest is aimed at intimidating someone. Free-speech zones aren't going to make anything better. I'd absolutely support anyone protesting something I agree with (or protesting for something I don't) and can't imagine that limiting people's right to protest or increasing the ability of government to hide from the public would be good for anyone except corrupt or incompetent government officials.

> This is the purview of journalists, police, and independent investigative boards.

There are no special rights given to "journalists" that aren't already given to all people. Journalists are just regular people and everyone has the freedom of the press. This matters more than ever today considering that our mass media is captured by political interests and controlled by an increasingly small number of rich people. We need independent journalists to be free to do their work. We absolutely need random "unqualified" people "stalking" politicians to uncover fraud. (where "unqualified" means independent, and "stalking" just means evidence gathering through recording or public records requests). There are countless of examples of "random nobodies" uncovering fraud or corruption. Some of them are doing it by carrying out long drawn out investigations over many months where they gather and review documents and conduct interviews, while others are doing it in a matter of seconds with nothing more than a cell phone recording posted to the internet. Some of those people uncovering and reporting corruption are people I'd generally disagree with politically, but I'll still support what they're doing because it's a critical function of a free nation.

As for police, there's a lot of problems with government investigating themselves and their friends. Independent investigative boards can be helpful but they too are best when they're just regular people.

There are extremely few public servants being assassinated in their homes. There are far more cases of public servants killing innocent people.

[anonymous908213]

> All protest is aimed at intimidating someone.

This isn't entirely true, but insofar as some protest is aimed at intimidation, protest should be aimed at intimidating the government as a whole, not a specific individual, unless perhaps that specific individual is the government as a whole, in which case they'll probably have tanks guarding their palace from unruly protestors and this discussion is moot.

> I'd absolutely support anyone protesting something I agree with

Even in a mob with 500 torches and pitchforks outside your family's house?

> There are no special rights given to "journalists" that aren't already given to all people. Journalists are just regular people and everyone has the freedom of the press.

This is correct in a technical sense but not really correct in a reality sense. Journalists are not privileged with legal rights, but they absolutely have many special social rights. Journalists are given access to places regular people would not be given access to all the time, and people are willing to talk to and divulge information to journalists that they would not be willing to give to random individuals. For an established journalist, it would be trivial to obtain a politician's address even if it were not public record. This social trust is earned by a record of professionalism.

> There are extremely few public servants being assassinated in their homes. There are far more cases of public servants killing innocent people.

The latter statement seems like a non-sequitur. It is true, but not really connected to the topic at hand. Knowing a politician's address doesn't stop them from killing people. It simply results in more total killing in the world, not less. We should strive to reduce all sources of senseless violence, and giving out politician's addresses is absolutely one of those sources.

[autoexec]

> protest should be aimed at intimidating the government as a whole, not a specific individual

If I find out that a city councilman is accepting bribes or using public money for personal expenses, why should I protest "government as a whole" and not that one city councilman doing the bad thing? What is protesting government as a whole going to do about raising awareness of one person's corruption?

> Even in a mob with 500 torches and pitchforks outside your family's house?

Yes, provided there was a member of my family here who worked for the government who those people were peacefully protesting.

> For an established journalist, it would be trivial to obtain a politician's address even if it were not public record.

How exactly? Stalking? There are other ways, true, but those are available to anyone right? What way exists that is trivial for a journalist, but not trivial for anyone else?

If a government worker's address are already easy for anyone to find even if they aren't public record than what's the harm in them being public record anyway? (you could equally argue that if every government worker's address was trivial to find elsewhere there'd be no need to make them available in public records, but there are advantages to having a standardized process that works everywhere for everyone vs trying to find various other means until one works)

> Knowing a politician's address doesn't stop them from killing people.

It can pressure them to resign, or generate enough press and attention that they are removed from their position (voted out by the people for example), or just pressure them to do a better job so as not to outrage the people they're supposed to serve. Not every protest at someone's home turns into a murder.

[anonymous908213]

> If I find out that a city councilman is accepting bribes or using public money for personal expenses, why should I protest "government as a whole" and not that one city councilman doing the bad thing? What is protesting government as a whole going to do about raising awareness of one person's corruption?

The government as a whole is responsible for dealing with the corruption of its subordinates. Here in Japan, we recently had a major corruption scandal that resulted in the resignation of PM Kishida in 2024. Kishida was not himself guilty, but nonetheless was made to take responsibility for overseeing the party which allowed this to happen. This is how it should be. For good governance to exist, the public must hold the government itself accountable such that the government is incentivized to root out corruption for its own survival.

> What way exists that is trivial for a journalist, but not trivial for anyone else?

Asking connections. They can make calls or send e-mails to people who would know, who will give them the information because they can trust the journalist, having an established professional career in journalism, will not use that information to attack the person at that address. It is much harder to trust a completely random person from the public with that information.

> It can pressure them to resign, or generate enough press and attention that they are removed from their position (voted out by the people for example), or just pressure them to do a better job so as not to outrage the people they're supposed to serve.

All of this can be accomplished without doing it at someone's home, and I don't believe doing it at their home increases the likelihood of it happening.

[whattheheckheck]

Just run the thought experiment of how an individual would rule the country if the people had no knowledge of their living situation and how they would rule the country if they did have knowledge of their living situation.

You know the answer in your gut