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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
The blogger was dead wrong. The gun permits are available PUBLIC records.
All the information is public information anyway so reality no one is wrong
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.
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.
They aren't sex offenders, they should have the right to their privacy. I'm siding with the blogger.
It is one of the ways we the consumer can use market forces to affect businesses and their behavior.
Most democrats I know value privacy. A lot of the big issues associated with them hinge on it.
Mississippi just likes being contrary.
I wonder how many here believe that Bradley Manning was justifiably incarcerated.
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.
Turnabout is fair play...
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.
Have the people in Mississippi made a pact not to vote with the rest of the country?
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.
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.
Cool. Another [indirect] poll to bring up politics into the matter. Guns or not, how about some freakin privacy ?
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!
Who! Good one!
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.
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
There are democrats in Texas?
^ 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
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.
MM - haha
Lack of respect for privacy doesn't apply to something that is already PUBLIC record.
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?
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
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.
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.
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.
I hadn't ever heard of that paper before.
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!
I am a liberal, but the newspaper crossed the line, the blogger is totally justified.
"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
That blogger was a bamf
Owning a gun is not illegal, why publish there information just because you don't like it. That argument goes both ways
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.
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
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.
haha very funny.
Bloggers have freedom of press too, and shame on the reporters of creating fear and resentment within a community.