Show of HandsShow of Hands

Show Of Hands December 27th, 2012 12:00am

A New York newspaper published the names and home addresses of people in a couple counties with gun permits. A blogger retaliated by publishing the names, photos, and home addresses of all the newspaper's employees. Pick a side.

1 Liked

Comments: Add Comment

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.

Reply
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.

Reply
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.

Reply
HarmieV Connecticut
12/30/12 2:52 pm

The blogger was dead wrong. The gun permits are available PUBLIC records.

Reply
july475
12/30/12 8:07 am

All the information is public information anyway so reality no one is wrong

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.

bamaboy23
12/29/12 10:41 pm

blotter=swagger

Reply
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.

Reply
Rocker saved by grace
12/29/12 4:46 pm

They aren't sex offenders, they should have the right to their privacy. I'm siding with the blogger.

flyberg Northern Kentucky
12/29/12 4:18 pm

It is one of the ways we the consumer can use market forces to affect businesses and their behavior.

flyberg Northern Kentucky
12/29/12 4:16 pm

Most democrats I know value privacy. A lot of the big issues associated with them hinge on it.

flyberg Northern Kentucky
12/29/12 4:06 pm

Mississippi just likes being contrary.

Reply
nFavOfSecess Texas
12/29/12 2:24 pm

I wonder how many here believe that Bradley Manning was justifiably incarcerated.

Hmmm...

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.

Reply
nFavOfSecess Texas
12/29/12 1:48 pm

Turnabout is fair play...

Reply
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.

Reply
EvanIsEpic Charlotte NC
12/29/12 12:37 pm

Have the people in Mississippi made a pact not to vote with the rest of the country?

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.

Reply
wright3f San Diego
12/29/12 4:26 am

Cool. Another [indirect] poll to bring up politics into the matter. Guns or not, how about some freakin privacy ?

Reply
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.

Reply
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

Reply
thekoon TX
12/28/12 5:04 pm

There are democrats in Texas?

Reply
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

Reply
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.

Reply
FemmeAdamWest in the Tardis library
12/28/12 3:51 pm

Lack of respect for privacy doesn't apply to something that is already PUBLIC record.

Reply
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

Reply
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.

Reply
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.

susanr Colorado
12/28/12 3:36 pm

I hadn't ever heard of that paper before.

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!

Reply
grizzy Kansas
12/28/12 2:54 pm

I am a liberal, but the newspaper crossed the line, the blogger is totally justified.

Reply
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

montie AnCap and proud
12/28/12 1:57 pm

That blogger was a bamf

Reply
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

Reply
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.

Reply
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

Reply
cheef Long Island, New York
12/28/12 12:27 pm

It shows who DOESNT own a gun and increases the chances of them being robbed, with the robbers knowing the homeowners have no direct form of self-defense.

KAYTEE34 Tennessee
12/28/12 12:03 pm

haha very funny.

Reply
Drathic Over Yonder
12/28/12 11:16 am

Bloggers have freedom of press too, and shame on the reporters of creating fear and resentment within a community.

Reply