First Amendment rights
I'm writing in response to the guest opinion "Enough is enough" (Bay Area Reporter November 15).
Whilst the notion of AIDS Activists Against Violence and Lies is a noble one, it seems that the escalation of emotion has obscured some of the factual underpinnings of what is going on here.
I do not belong to ACT UP/San Francisco or any other related organization for that matter. I do not speak on behalf nor have any affiliation with them. Nor do I necessarily condone or automatically condemn their methodology.
There are, however, statements made in this guest opinion that are frighteningly inappropriate and demand a response.
There are laws in place that prohibit threatening communications over electronic devices, such as a telephone. If indeed Pasquarelli said what was alleged over the telephone, he risks the legal ramifications of threatening to close someone's mouth for good. This is not just inappropriate it is illegal.
On the other hand, is his opinion of a public official is that he is a "Nazi pig," he has a First Amendment right to express as much.
The authors claim they are accountable to the community, conveniently and inappropriately ignoring the fact that for better or worse, ACT UP/San Francisco and Michael Petrelis are also part of the community and have every right to demand verification of statements that are being bandied about and the right to be privy to statistics and data that form the basis of policy making. It's called democracy.
Whilst calling people at home in the middle of the night is not going to inspire a fruitful dialogue, it also might be considered harassment for which, again, there are legal remedies available to the victims.
However the simple publishing of listed names and numbers that are publicly available is perfectly legal. Just the same way as sites like stopdrlaura.com and other publications deserve and enjoy the right to publish information that is publicly available, such as listings of electro-conversion clinics or former-homosexual organizations that claim to be able to "cure" homosexuality.
Sending e-mail alerts is a right to be cherished in a democracy. Just as campaigns for Senators Boxer and Feinstein might send out e-mail alerts advocating pro-choice leanings that some in the community might find offensive. The recipient of an e-mail alert can make the decision for himself or herself whether or not to give credence to the message based on the credibility of the sender. It's called choice.
Defacing private property is inappropriate and illegal. However, communicating fairly in a public forum is and should be acceptable. It's why we call it a public forum.
Let's separate violence from the equation. Violence is an inherently evil and primal response -- inappropriate and simply used as a mechanism by those who do not trust their minds enough to use reason. I condemn it unequivocally.
Assuming Michael Petrelis is providing misleading and incorrect information about disease prevention organizations to the right wing in Washington D.C., resulting in demands for audits and cutbacks in funding, the appropriate response is to counter this misinformation with accurate and truthful information.
If elected officials are making policy and budget decisions based upon misleading and inaccurate information, that need to be brought to task and exposed for their failure to verify the veracity of the information upon which they are formulating such policy. It's called voting.
Similarly, national media outlets that are responding to unscientific and fuzzy predictions, vilification, and fear mongering that results from irresponsible and unsubstantiated communications from city officials should be equally unacceptable to anyone demanding truth and accuracy in the dissemination of information.
Suggesting silencing ACT UP or Michael Petrelis is as dangerous and ridiculously shortsighted an approach as suggesting AIDS or other disease prevention services be silenced or shut down.
Petrelis may have a "strange bedfellow" in Jesse Helms, but so what? Who's to say that the bedfellows that organizations like the Human Rights Campaign have been known to hop in bed with are any better or any more representative of the communities they are claiming to represent?
I firmly and unequivocally believe that people who are fighting AIDS and STDs deserve to be able to work free from intimidation and violence. I also strongly support ACT UP/San Francisco's and Michael Petrelis's right to communicate their grievances, beliefs and ideas with as much fervor.
I do not know Dr. Jeff Klausner and I don't doubt that he is committed to doing his job as best he can with the best of intentions. As a public health official who is communicating publicly, he ought to know better than to loosely throw around words like "quarantine" since the likelihood of the press framing it in its intended context is virtually nil.
If silence equals death, then silencing equals murder.
Clinton Fein, Editor & Publisher
annoy.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A real issue
This whole article written by Cynthia Laird ["The new 'q-word,'" November 22] diverts the attention away from the seriousness of quarantine, which Dr. Jeffrey Klausner is now denying. True, Dr. Klausner said that he would never recommend the quarantining of HIV-positive men. However, HIV-positive men and HIV-positive men who have natural sex (i.e. without condoms) are two very distinct groups of people. I would like to remind you that Dr. Jeffrey Klausner has broached the topic of quarantining HIV-positive gay men who consentingly have sex without condoms with other men. This was clearly stated in the November issue of the Washington Monthly when asked about HIV-positive men who refused to control themselves or more specifically, "their infectivity." This is what ACT UP/SF and others are very concerned about.
I may not agree with the home phone zapping technique that was used to make individuals aware of the frustration and anger of what is happening here within San Francisco's gay community, but ACT UP/SF is not "promulgating" or trying to "divert" anyone's attention away from "real issues." Quarantining is a very real issue and a threat to our community and lives. I applaud ACT UP/SF for keeping on top of what is going on around the community, locally and nationally.
I would like to remind people that in the November 25 issue of the San Francisco Chronicle the cover story was titled, "Health bill jeopardizes civil rights." These "extraordinary powers" assigned to health officers (i.e. EIS agent Dr. Jeffrey Klausner) are described as being "so broad that it could include AIDS, HIV infection or a severe flu epidemic." The only difference between this article and what ACT UP/SF has reported is that ACT UP/SF was being very conservative about who would be quarantined - HIV-positive men who knowingly have sex without condoms. The Chronicle article refers to AIDS and HIV-positive men with no distinction.
I can only hope that people will take this situation seriously no matter whom is reporting it or how it is being reported. As a gay man within this community I am very frightened by what I am reading, but more so by the ho-hum response within the gay community and its supposed leaders.
Steven D. Keller
San Francisco