InBox485 California
01/04/13 8:56 am
With one newspaper advocating KKK style violence against gun rights supporters, and another publishing names, home addresses and the makes models and quantities, they have far exceeded the scope of the 1st amendment. Publishing the addresses of the publisher and editors was perfectly fair in return.
NerdieWifey Washington
01/04/13 1:54 am
Whether the information on who has permits was public or not, it didn't need to be publicised by the newspaper. That information is available for those that ARE interested. If the newspaper was all butt hurt about the blogger retaliating, maybe they should come up with an actual story.
MsMandi
01/01/13 2:55 am
BLOGGER!!!! The fun owners have MUCH more right to privacy than anyone who sets out to infringe on the right to privacy of all those people! I would love to find the blog and rebroadcast it as much as I am able
tdaddy diversity
12/31/12 9:45 am
Blogger. Now gun thieves will have even more places to steal guns, then get the legit owners in big (hopefully just temporary) trouble if the guns are used to commit new crimes. Besides, half the alleged owners probably don't even know how to shoot their guns so self-defense is not very likely.
lookatthisdick
12/30/12 3:29 pm
What was the purpose of the newspaper going out of its way to make that information well known? Public records or not, there's no need to post that in a major newspaper, not when there's so much controversy about it.
susanr Colorado
12/30/12 2:15 am
Not really, not if it puts other people *and their families* in danger. If the bloggers thought it was such a terrible thing to do (and I agree with that!), they shouldn't do it to anyone else. *And their families.* I say they're both wrong, almost equally.
FastFusion nj
12/29/12 9:49 pm
We don't advertise we have guns in our house because we don't want them to be stolen. And I know my children are in homes that have guns. That's why when they were 11 & 12 yrs old I taught them how to shoot, and we NEVER had a problem.
yallnoit
12/29/12 2:12 pm
Do you have to register to use free speech? Why not a map of all those authorized to speak freely? Dictators always disarm those they seek to oppress.
soulfighter
12/29/12 1:20 pm
I voted the newspaper primarily bc It's public information. There's nothing to be ashamed about being a gun owner and if u were a parent don't u want to know if ur kids friends parents have guns in the house. Also it puts pressure for gun owners to be more responsible if their guns.
jmatsby
12/29/12 12:21 pm
One posted public record, the other private records (depends on how they got it). At least for the gun owners robbers will know which houses to avoid.
hexin Wisconsin
12/29/12 4:51 am
Voted blogger, but they're both in the wrong really. How many of the newspaper's staff had anything to do with the names he published? Should have just done the relevant people.
codyussery Texas
12/28/12 11:44 pm
It's not me that I'm worried I have guns and I don't care who knows! It's my friends who don't have guns that now criminals know there house is unarmed. To the newspaper you are all idiots!
fredd TrumpLand
12/28/12 10:30 pm
Liberal-leaning independant here who is not a fan of guns. I'm with the blogger though. Public information or not, those people did not ask to be publicised in the newspaper and haven't done anything wrong. Make the paper think twice next time.
Top job by the blogger.
jacmcmaho
12/28/12 8:40 pm
I believe that the paper was wrong and should be held accountable if one of the unarmed homes are robbed, but technically they broke no laws, when I read what the blogger did I started laughing serves the paper right
thekoon TX
12/28/12 5:02 pm
^ now criminals know which houses to avoid, some women who were in hiding from abusive ex's or stalkers and had guns for protection are now back in hiding after their addresses were published, etc. the newspaper put a lot of people at risk for no good reason and this retaliation makes me happy
kateXcore Dark side of the moon
12/28/12 4:54 pm
Blogger. But that's okay, criminals are going to know those places are armed and avoid them. Orrrr they'll go to those places when nobody is home to steal a gun. Let's put guns in the hands of as many criminals as possible!! IDIOTS.
susanr Colorado
12/28/12 3:48 pm
vandykes, I don't see how. If the information is public & they could have gotten it on their own, I don't see how the paper could be held responsible. Same as if someone murdered a person on a public child molester list. They,re still responsible. Is there precedent for this sort of liability?
FemmeAdamWest in the Tardis library
12/28/12 3:46 pm
How did the newspaper cross the line when all it did is print already public information? When the blogger on the other hand, took information of private citizens, many of whom had nothing to do with the article but just happened to Work for the same newspaper
susanr Colorado
12/28/12 3:45 pm
pinky, you're assuming that even more than a few newspaper staff employees see what's going into the paper the next day. I don't think that's accurate. My impression is that each staffer works on their own stories & a few people put the paper together.
susanr Colorado
12/28/12 3:40 pm
You talkin' to me, SGTHOOAH? I know the argument goes both ways. I think the paper and the blogger were both wrong. Since I had to pick one, I sided with the blogger.
JackTorS Clap you stupid bastards
12/28/12 3:39 pm
Huh?
A bully. You know, someone who attacks you for no reason other than because he can or just wants to?
In this case, two wrongs DOES make it right in my opinion. (to use one of your clichés).
Nothing else needs to be done because I guarantee they won't do anything like this again.
superdave
12/28/12 2:59 pm
I could care less..... In Texas, I am pretty sure most of my neighbors have guns..... Not something we hide or care if anyone knows!
fmm Philadelphia suburb
12/28/12 2:10 pm
"these are the bad guys" is your perception - and maybe even how the paper positioned it - doesn't mean that's how the masses feel - I'll say it again, I don't see the ethical issue in publishing fully public data
SGTHOOAH
12/28/12 1:48 pm
Owning a gun is not illegal, why publish there information just because you don't like it. That argument goes both ways
lightsabr2 The Wild Blue Yonder
12/28/12 1:04 pm
The reckless newspaper has put hundreds at risk. They should be fined into the ground for their lack of respect for privacy. Better yet, they want to pick a fight with all the confirmed gun owners? Bad idea.
dflem Arizona
12/28/12 1:03 pm
I think this all the time. Anytime people from the medias information is released it's a huge deal but when the media list people's names and addresses its fine. I'll wait for the day one of them has to report on his or her own affair
Comments: Add Comment