You make a bunch of valid points. Thanks for clarifying. >Having secret judges, secret tribunals, or anonymous judges, would only make oppression easier. This

You make a bunch of valid points. Thanks for clarifying. >Having secret judges, secret tribunals, or anonymous judges, would only make oppression easier. This is what dictatorships do. But I don't really get what you mean by this. We don't have secret or anonymous judges. And anyone who wants to address any particular judge knows exactly where to find them -- at the relevant courthouse. In fairness, we do have the FISA court, whose proceedings are secret (and I don't like that one bit), but the judges who sit on the FISA court aren't anonymous or "secret." And again, if someone has an issue with any of those judges, they can just go to the relevant court and do so. Going to people's homes to intimidate or harm them or their families is repugnant to me personally and to a free society in general. You said that "Laws like this just give them more cover." Are you advocating that people go to people's homes to intimidate, threaten and harm people and/or their families as a check on how they deal with others? That sounds a lot like the vigilantism you appear to decry. Or are you claiming that we live in a failed state, so any actions taken against public figures is not only acceptable, but encouraged? I guess the tl;dr is that you didn't answer my question. Will you do so now?