Ethical? Interactive map of gun permit holders

That is why I call it misguided. Just because he thinks the Journal News was out of line doesn't make it right for him to do the same to their employees, most of whom had nothing to do with it.

 

I'm "up in arms"? News to me.

My original post said: I wouldn't have posted the list, but it was a dick move by the blogger. I stand by that point.

 

Slate.

www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2013/01/the_journal_news_gun_map_the_first_amendment_and_state_law_gave_the_new.html

 

I think the major question is whether or not it is ethical and right to publish public information just because it is public.

An example - in my state, arrest records are public record. Years ago, the paper I'm now at would publish the names of those arrested each week. Those people had not been charged with a crime. After a new editor took over (still before my time), that policy changed and the names were no longer published.

I agree with the "new" policy. Just because information is public does not mean we have to fall all over ourselves in a race to publish it. There needs to be some wise, judicious decisions made.

I am all in favor of newspapers maintaining their roles as watchdogs and disseminating public information, but in this case, the paper messed up big-time. Shock value is not an ethical and valid reason for publishing something.

 

Some interesting stats on the number of annual accidental shooting injuries in the US, especially to children.

pediatrics.about.com/od/safety/a/gun-accidents.htm

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:yPSnYNmekoEJ:www.uphs.upenn.edu/ficap/resourcebook/pdf/monograph.pdf+&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEEShJwW326EiE0hU-1WY5QmxKGOAYExRKmd4oM6WmYFdZLlWbE4-JGQBGrJcwQAhyApXfoITrq3mGkgxe9gkwu1k3HabKUHgTmuI9fZjmqYygZmefWPonbhHZoEzkIr0ES31wlVtO&sig=AHIEtbTQUKY13iY3W130bonCNLrArXEBnQ

Can any case be made, especially on behalf of parents, that publishing a list of handgun permit holders is analogous to publishing a list of known - but unseen - public health hazards?

 

Az, I say yes and no. More kids die accidentally, as pointed out earlier, by accidental drowning. No one is publishing a list of those that applied for zoning permits to install swimming pools. It is not the paper's responsibility to make sure junior is going to play with his friend at a "safe" house...that is up to junior's parents. They should talk to the parents who own the home their child is play in. If they are worried about a gun they should ask if they own handguns or keep any in their home (again, as pointed out earlier in this thread, this was not even a list of people who own guns, just permits). If the parent wants to make sure his child is not playing in a home with guns stored in it, it is up to the parent to ask.

 

Many more kids die of accidental drowning than accidental shootings, yes, but the number of annual injuries in both cases is nearer equal.

And most municipalities now require pool fencing by law.

As was said upthread, a parent can see a neighborhood pool. And a pool fence. But not a handgun.

 

I see both sides...yes, a parent should know if their child is playing in a house with guns. I would want to know and to make sure they are stored safely and securely. On the other hand, whatever happened to the parent actually talking to the other parent about potential risks in their home? That's what I am trying to say. I know when my fire year-old starts going to friends' houses I am going to ask them a ton of questions about what they have in their home. Would not feel comfortable if I didn't.

 

I thought the Poynter critique said it best -- if you're going to dig up the data, do more with it.

But the critics aren't doing much to win any sympathy. As others have said, it's simply a dick move to grab every employee's address. The paper at least could claim a public interest. The dude who posted all these addresses is just trying to being a bully.

And in some cases, it's stupid and counterproductive. He dug up one reporter's email, Twitter and Facebook from her bio, which said she really wants to hear from people. So ... um ... thanks for the help?

And we've probably been in this situation. Someone calls the paper to yell about an editorial or some news story, and we're the ones who answer the phone. We try to explain that the editorial page is a separate department. "Yeah, suuuure it is," comes the reply. We don't hang up thinking, "Oh, my opinion of news has been forever changed." We think, "What a dumbass."

Now people are going after the advertisers. I believe Boon and Otter put it best: "They can't do that to our pledges. Only WE can do that to our pledges."

So I hope no one involved with that paper faces the slightest bit of harm. For one thing, they're our fellow journalists, and no one there has done anything unambiguously evil. For another, I hate to empower dumbasses.

 

This blogger is out to see some Journal News employee raped or murdered in their home. That's what this is all about.
If you're going to keep a weapon in your house or on your person, a little bit of your privacy is the price you pay. Okay?

 

Has anyone heard if any Journal News employees are gun permit holders, and, if so, if they were included in the list that was published?

 

The Cleveland Plain Dealer published a list of concealed carry permits in 2004. Same thing happened.

ohioccw.org/200407292248/cleveland-editor-takes-heat-for-publishing-gun-list.html