If the names and addresses of gun permit holders are fair game, what about this?
When journalists start a privacy war, where does it end?
The publication of the names and addresses of gun permit holders by the NY Lower Hudson Journal News , a Gannett paper, sparked controversy, including publication by a blogger (additional here) of equally personal yet publicly available information about the editors and writers of the Journal News.
The paper defends its conduct on the following grounds:
Which brings me to a comment submitted last night. It was from a first-time commenter, and it contained personal contact information for the Chairwoman of Gannett, including home address, telephone numbers, second home, neighbors, and relatives.
I don’t like the tactic, but it is something done by a Gannett newspaper (at least as to names and addresses).
I’m on board with adopting some of the left’s Alinskyite tactics, like holding them to their own rules, but does this go too far, particularly since she was not directly involved? And the information is much more personal than just name and address.
Is there any newsworthiness in it? No more or less so than the identity of law-abiding gun permit holders. Neither poses a threat to the public. But it’s certainly something people are interested in.
I’m not going to publish the unredacted comment, but what do you think?
Update:
+650
The paper defends its conduct on the following grounds:
“New York residents have the right to own guns with a permit and they also have a right to access public information,” said Janet Hasson, president and publisher of The Journal News Media Group….There has been criticism by other professional journalists that it was not necessary to provide names and addresses in order to obtain whatever journalistic value there was in the story. AtPoynter, Al Tompkins writes:
“We knew publication of the database would be controversial, but we felt sharing as much information as we could about gun ownership in our area was important in the aftermath of the Newtown shootings,” said CynDee Royle, editor and vice president/news….
I am not a big fan of the maps that show sex offenders, but at least there is a logical reason for posting them …. The permit holders are accused of nothing….The Journal News is planning on another data dump with more names and addresses in surrounding counties.
I like it when journalists take heat for an explosive, necessary, courageous investigation that exposes important wrongdoing. There is journalistic purpose and careful decision-making supporting those stories. But The News Journal is taking heat for starting a gunfight just because it could.
Which brings me to a comment submitted last night. It was from a first-time commenter, and it contained personal contact information for the Chairwoman of Gannett, including home address, telephone numbers, second home, neighbors, and relatives.
I don’t like the tactic, but it is something done by a Gannett newspaper (at least as to names and addresses).
I’m on board with adopting some of the left’s Alinskyite tactics, like holding them to their own rules, but does this go too far, particularly since she was not directly involved? And the information is much more personal than just name and address.
Is there any newsworthiness in it? No more or less so than the identity of law-abiding gun permit holders. Neither poses a threat to the public. But it’s certainly something people are interested in.
I’m not going to publish the unredacted comment, but what do you think?
+650Reactions
No Reactions for this Post (Yet)
Comments
And speaking of the First Amendment and holding someone to their own logic, gun owners are protected by the Second Amendment. Publishers, like the CEO of Gannett, are protected by the First Amendment. Every justification that the newspaper uses for publishing the addresses of those exercising their Second Amendment rights can be used to justify publishing the addresses of others who are exercising their First Amendment rights.
They started this war, let’s see if the have the guts to finish it; or, will they go screaming to DC for “Mommie”?
Professor, we are literally in the end stage of pretending that politics as normal mean something. The Constitutional order has been de facto overturned, while retaining the external trappings of the old order. The government is at open war on the Bill of Rights. Congress has lost the power of the purse and no longer represents anything but their own vested interests. The rule of law is gone. Who you are and who you are connected to decides if you will be prosecuted for any crime. No connections = no mercy and frequently no due process. If connected to the regime, you are immune. Our courts have withdrawn from the fray or have been subverted. In any major issue, it seems that the courts rule that there is no one who has standing to oppose the will of the State; so the State wins. And if a matter does get before the courts, the courts rule based on politics, not law. The Supreme Court is no longer a barrier defending the Constitutions. When Chief Justice Roberts suddenly reversed his entire life’s work to rule that the Federal government could violate the Constitution so long as it did it in the guise of a tax; it was obvious that he has been gotten to and is now merely a tool of the regime.
Moderating our conduct while the country is still on this side of violence will not prevent things going from bad to worse. Things are going to get worse even if we become martyred saints. Our restraint in the face of ongoing attacks merely removes restraints on the conduct of those who seek the destruction of our country and Constitution. If their escalations are only met with feeble responses on our part, they are encouraged to push the envelope until they reach the point of violence.
So long as no law is broken [after all, that is the standard of combat that they have set; akin to say the real rules on the use of poison gas in warfare] then hit back twice as hard. Make them deal with their families and their neighbors being angry at them. And publicly out the nature of their bias’ in every thing they publish. Keep in mind that just recently the State got the power to wiretap, investigate, and arrest people without warrant of probably cause. Do you think that they are going to limit what they dig up in the name of “decency”? Look at their record.
Every employee of the paper should have a full background check, as deep as can be done within the bounds of the law. If a prospective employer can find it, then it should be legal. And publishable. Criminal records, court judgments, membership in various organizations, political contributions, public statements. If the investigation leads to family members, so be it. Reveal it all.
Publish the ownership/management details of all the companies who advertised in the editions where the permit holders are/were mapped who continue to advertise with them. There will be the implication that they could receive the same detailed attention as the employees. And if Gannett does not rein in the Journal News; move up the corporate food chain.
Given the nature of the Journo-List 2.0 media; it would be wise for all of their major personalities to be subject to the same investigation as the Journal-News’ staff just to have in reserve for when they next outrageously lie. And every personality in the current administration. There is a lot of work to do.
Oh, and one more little cross check on the Journal-News’ map. Do not take it on faith that their map was complete. Follow up on it and make sure that they did not “accidentally” forget to publish the names of various politically or otherwise connected individuals that they did not want to offend. If there are political or other celebrities who are calling for the abolition of the 2nd Amendment while themselves being armed; that needs to be Alinsky-ed out.
If we are to have a hope of stopping the enemies of our country before they physically attack us, we have to make them pay a price and show that they will be opposed if they cross that line. Yielding to them does not accomplish that end.
I am reminded of a quote by Alexander Solzhenitsyn in his GULAG Archipelago that seems on point. It was about the greatest regret of those in the slave labor camps:
The forces of the Left right now know that they attack us short of violence in perfect safety. We cannot let them think that that safety will be there when they inevitably turn to violence. Thus, we must strike back overwhelmingly before that line is crossed.
Subotai Bahadur
Amusing, but I just as soon stay out of that game.
If something bad happened at a Journalist Residence, the finger of blame has already been pointed.
And now it would be very easy to take advantage of and turn about.
“So, you did this to me. Is that the way you wanna be treated? Fine. Here we go!”
And if they complain, just say, “Did you see what YOU made us do?”
There’s one interesting thing that the Left don’t seem to get. Alinsky said, “Let the enemy live by their own book of rules.”
Problem is, The Golden Rule is a two-way street. Hillel said, “What is harmful to you, you shall not do to thy neighbor. That is the whole Torah.” Jesus said it almost verbatim.
But if the neighbor does something harmful to you and enjoys it wholeheartedly, that implies he WANTS to be treated the same way he has treated you! Isn’t thatwonderful?
Dish it out and have fun, Marxists, but let’s see what happens when you can’t take it…!
People who have no problem with the government confiscating private property of fellow citizens have no idea what kind of society they are aiming for. Their latter day lamentations, when their turn comes, will be useless.
Leave a Comment