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:
“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….
“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….
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. At Poynter, Al Tompkins writes:
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….
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.
The Journal News is planning on another data dump with more names and addresses in surrounding counties.
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:
@leginsurrection how abt addresses of women who had abortion? Parents may not want their kids playing in homes of “baby killers” #alinsky
— Barbara McMahon (@southsalem) December 30, 2012
Comments
Holding someone to their own rules long predates Saul Alinsky, so there’s nothing wrong with using that tactic. The basic form of Talmudic logic is the attack question and the most powerful attack question is to judge a position by its own standards. Holding Gannett to the same standards that they practice is not only fair game, but a fundamental expression of Gannett critics’ First Amendment rights.
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.
Completely in my own interest, and thus the “public” interest for me to know where the busybodies are. Maybe your neighbor down the street is a “journalist” and has been asking your kid all kinds of questions without you knowing it. (Of course, “asking questions” is not what they do, actually. They posit circumstantial scenarios and seek certain feedback for soundbites.) Or setting up remote, discreet cameras for a special report on dog-owners who never pick up after their pet or nabes who don’t recycle.
One unhappy wielder of the “pen” can make life misery for his neighbors, I’d bet. Best to know if you’re living next to a Mike Wallace wanna-be.
Screw-em!
They started this war, let’s see if the have the guts to finish it; or, will they go screaming to DC for “Mommie”?
There are two kinds of privacy: YOUR privacy, which is what these two empty skirts decide what defines it – and THEIR privacy, which is sacrosanct. It looks to me like these twoFimi-libs are throwing out the bait to see if they can hook onto a job with, let me see, MSNBC? NPR? CNN? This two bit newspaper that no one ever heard of is getting tons of free publicity in the state run media. I await their printing names and addresses of those who had abortions. You bet your bottom dollar it will never happen. Why? PRIVACY! These two “Newspaperwomen” would hide themselves pehind privacy. However, gunowners, conservatives, repugs? They have NO RIGHT to “Privacy.” To all you folks in Westchester County who have been “Outed” by these two harridans, we here in Texas are with you 100%. We have two simple suggestions: #1. If you have a subscription to this birdcage liner, cancel immediately. #2. Band together, hire the best lawyers in the country (Some might even work pro-bobo) and SUE the bast_rds for all they are worth.
I’d like to see the unredacted report published.
I agree with CID, if the Liberal Left wants to play games with privacy, then it’s “alls fair in love and war” and this is a war on the Consitution. So, publish away! I’ll republish on my small blog any list of names and addresses you publish here.
Somehow, I doubt that the libs would be as quick to put up the names and addresses of AIDS carriers, or people with VD, given that they can be a threat to people (healthwise) and some have been known to pass the disease deliberately.
Simply because one has the freedom and the right to do something does not mean one should automatically be shielded from the consequences (indeed, exactly the opposite: as a libertarian I agree with P. J. O’Rourke’s dictum that alongside the prime freedom, the freedom to do as one pleases, comes the prime duty: taking the heat). As Chairwoman of Gannett, this individual is directly in the chain of authority – and near one end of it – through which the decision to publish information on gun permit holders was exercised. Even if she were not directly involved in the decision to publish, she is responsible for corporate direction. It is deeply corrosive to liberty for consequences to fail to follow from actions, whether they be extra-legal, societal sanctions such as here, or equal application of the law as per the David Gregory magazine case. I say publish the full, unredacted comment if for no other reason than pour encourager les autres.
An amazing burst of comments. Nerves have been touched.
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
There is nothing left to say.
Professor, lock this thread. Remove all comments save this one.
You have your answer.
First off: Hear, hear, Subotai, you stated the issue very well, thank you.
Secondly, Dr. Susan Hupp also said it well during her testimony before Congress after the 1991 Killeen, Texas, restaurant massacre that the purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to allow we the people the ability to defend ourselves against a tyrannical government.
Hunting, target shooting, sport shooting, have nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment, just the right of we the people to defend against tyranny and those who would destroy our Constitution along with the rights it proclaims so very well.
Thanks. Once again well-reasoned and gut-wrenching analysis from the famed Mongolian warrior/BC commenter. Terrifyingly spot on.
Sorry to come back, but in case anyone is still visiting this thread, there is news on point.
The New York Times does not publish anything in relation to domestic politics without the tacit or overt prior approval of the leadership of the Democrats, or the White House; when as now the Democrats hold it.
That puts this editorial published today in the appropriate context.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/31/opinion/lets-give-up-on-the-constitution.html?_r=0
One does not appear on the NYT editorial page without the approval of the editorial board and by extension Valerie Jarrett in the White House.
For them to solicit and print an editorial recommending that the Constitution be abandoned as the authority for the government of the United States, to be replaced with more “practical” means shows their true intent.
There is no longer any rational reason to grant the benefit of the doubt to any Democrat as to their goals or intentions for this country. Given that there has not been any evidence of any Democrat standing in opposition to what is now laid out before us for at least a generation; if they do not stand against what is happening, they indict themselves. Their goal is to impose a collectivist, one party, permanent dictatorship over the rest of us.
As noted in this thread, there is no reason to return civility and restraint for the attacks of the Left. And I, and others, a lot of others, have several times raised our hands to an oath that included the words; “preserve, protect, and defend”.
The coming year is going to be interesting. And not at all pleasant.
Subotai Bahadur
In general, I agree with the premise of your more recent comment! As an enlisted man, I did swear each time to “… support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic,” as did all other enlisted persons, TTEOMPK, and I do believe the same statement is made in an officer’s oath of office. However, the “preserve, protect, and defend” clause must be an a different oath, perhaps for a political office holder, although I could be in error on that.
My main point is that the argument made in the NYT opinion piece is just that, an opinion and nothing more. That opinion is little different than that made by others regarding issues relating to our Constitution. As long as our current administration does not verve too much more than it has, our way of governance is secure.
But yes, your point about the NYT’s relationship with Progressives and Socialists is so very true, with the caveat, so what! Except for the Anne Wintour’s of the world, and her kind, who care little at all for the views of us little people, the NYT no longer rules the media world yet not for lack of trying nor of wanting to. It’s still very much worth the effort to counter what idiocy the NYT expresses simply to keep in practice.
Mr. Seidman does raise issues that other perhaps more balanced people have done before. One issue that I would encourage be discussed is that our Supreme Court has issued its own versions of reality contrary to either the plain language of the Constitution or to facts on the ground. Recall that per our Constitution, Congress defines what SCOTUS may rule on. That one point by itself is one excellent reason for defending that ancient document first presented back in 1787, even while we otherwise argue how our country should be governed.
IMHO: It’s way too early for our side to raise the black flag and I still do believe that Obama’s kindly supporters shall raise it first; Feinstein is very close to doing that now, it’s in her blood and she’s ready to do it.
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.
True. And I think many missed the hidden compassion here.
Let’s take the hypothetical example of Biff Jockstrap, a very priveleged athlete at a wealthy school. He does subpar schoolwork, yet recieves B’s and A’s. He beats up the unpopular kids, and they get detention while he goes free. With every transgression that is met with token or no punishment, Biff gets more and more confident that he can do whatever he likes without consequence.
One day, Biff finds himself in Da ‘Hood, mouths off to the wrong guy, and is shot dead. Maybe if Biff had actually gotten some consequences for his antisocial behavior–even in the form of one unpopular kid giving him a set of brass knuckles to the jaw–he might have gained enough common sense to know when not to step over the line, and he might have stayed alive.
For those who didn’t get it, being brutal in cyberspace today with liberal thugs, may forestall the necessity of being brutal with them on the streets tomorrow. And if it doesn’t, at least they can’t say they weren’t given every possible warning.
No kids. Period.
Please check with Sarah Palin and G.W. Bush about leaving the children alone and get back to me please. Sauce for the goose is also sauce for the gander.
The MSM has spent the last week or so dragging the dead bodies of the Newtown children around the ring in case you missed it.
O blames his bad behavior on Bush, you’d blame our bad behavior on their unfair attacks on Bush/Palin/some other offense.
The difference? We are better than they are, so act like it. Leave the kids out of it.
Well..
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.
If this is truly all information gleaned from public sources. Publish it. Some of this info I have discovered/verified on my own and tweeted it.
The newspaper should not have been given the list of gun owners in the first place, as doing so was a violation of New York State law as amended in February 2012: “AN ACT to amend the penal law, in relation to pistol permit privacy.” It’s a short piece written in surprisingly clear language, and you can read it at:
http://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?sh=printbill&bn=A09388&term=
[Note that the wording in brackets indicates old law that is now omitted.]
Two key points:
First, these records are NOT public records any longer (note the brackets), but are deemed confidential:
“The name and address of any person to whom an application for any license has been granted shall be [a public record] CONFIDENTIAL AND SHALL NOT BE MADE AVAILABLE EXCEPT AS SET FORTH IN PARAGRAPH (B) OF THIS SUBDIVISION.
Second, this confidential information CANNOT legally be released to anyone except law enforcement:
“A request for the entire list of licensees, or for all licensees in a geographic area, shall be denied, except to any law enforcement agency or any entity acting on behalf of or providing services to any law enforcement agency.”
Therefore, the newspaper received this information in violation of state law. Surely their publication of illegally obtained records is NOT fair game, as Prof Jacobson wonders in the title of this post. Someone should be charged and punished for the commission of this crime – perhaps the county clerk for releasing the information or perhaps the newspaper for receiving and disseminating it. Like that will ever happen.
This episode is not a matter of manners or freedom of the press, it is about a violation of penal law. I believe the actual illegality that underlies the release of confidential information about private citizens who are not suspected of any crime should be the focus of the public debate. Please share this information and the links as widely as possible. We need to demand an investigation and prosecution for this violation of the law.
I found the link to this copy of the law at:
http://bastionofliberty.blogspot.com/2012/12/as-ye-give-so-shall-ye-get-dept.html
This has to be the “Golden Rule”… on hyper-drive.
“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 that wonderful?
Dish it out and have fun, Marxists, but let’s see what happens when you can’t take it…!
The purpose of the list was the desire for gun confiscation by government. Governor Cuomo mentioned it as a possibility. So, they are pretty much saying, Yes, you can start here – see the Google mapping.
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.
Sometimes you must fight the enemy on their own turf.
All this talk about honor and integrity and taking the high road… In truth, Patton had it right. Americans love to fight. Americans play to win and to conquer, we must destroy our enemies. This isn’t a shooting war, it’s an ideological war but you fight both in much the same way. We have two choices: Fight or submit. There is no middle ground and if you’re going to fight, you fight to win.
That is exactly what we need, a General Patton.
Gasp! BORK these people???
It’s about time!
Has anyone who lives near Sag Harbor considered showing up to protest outside Ms. Magner’s house like the left did with the bankers a while back??
I don’t see this going anywhere. Unfortunately the only thing that works to take out such people is assassination .
And that is not legal.
I don’t see any reason not to publish such information about a figure who is prominent in the media, so long as it is publicly available and the source reasonably believes it to be true, or at last is not acting maliciously. Sullivan standards should apply both ways.
Do any commenters here know what NY state law says about “open carry”? Would it be legally possible for NY gun owners to publicly demonstrate open carry on a specific date/time or at a planned location/event? I’m thinking that would drive quite a few blooming idiots even more bonkers than normal.
You should have published the redacted information.
I would have.
[...] In protest, bloggers posted the home addresses and telephone numbers of Journal News editors and staff. Also circulating was the personal and family contact information for the Chairwoman of Gannett. [...]