Ethical? Interactive map of gun permit holders

[YankeeFan]

Sorry, but that's bullshirt. The real issue is the gun rights folks wanting to punish as many people as possible for what the Journal News did, even if it includes people who had nothing to do with it.

So, they punished them by publishing their public records on some obscure blog?

What will they ever do next?

Stupid, but also inconsequential.

Let's just say I question the motives of those defending that action such as yourself, especially given your stance on gun rights.

I also defended the newspaper. They're public records.

I can't wait for the list and map of people receiving welfare benefits or who use food stamps/LINK cards.

 

[Captain Obvious]

Sorry, but that's bullshirt. The real issue is the gun rights folks wanting to punish as many people as possible for what the Journal News did, even if it includes people who had nothing to do with it.

So, they punished them by publishing their public records on some obscure blog?

What will they ever do next?

Stupid, but also inconsequential.

Let's just say I question the motives of those defending that action such as yourself, especially given your stance on gun rights.

I also defended the newspaper. They're public records.

I can't wait for the list and map of people receiving welfare benefits or who use food stamps/LINK cards.

When those are public, I'm sure you'll let us know. Food stamps don't exist anymore, either.

 

[heyabbott]

Blogger hits back and lists addresses -- and photos -- of Journal staff:

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2012/12/blogger-retaliates-against-gun-permit-holder-map.html

I would not have published the map, especially without any contextual information. But that's a real deck move.

Maybe a deck move until you know how it feels to have public information about yourself broadcasted and disseminated you have no idea how invasive it is. Maybe these reporters will. And I hope it wasn't limited to reporters, but every employee. It's a deck move, but it may be deserved.

Example, a local paper, through the local FOIA, has received the names, occupations and salaries of every public employee in the county with plans to publish. So every cafeteria worker, teacher, admin aid, crossing guard, cop, lawyer, plumber, building inspector... will have their names and salaries published. Public record, certainly. But a deck move. Want to write a story about a bloated bureaucracy using salary information, great. What's the purpose in calling out by name every teacher, fireman and secretary except to prove that the paper, like a dog, can lick it's own balls.

gander, meet goose.

Funny that the folks who shout constitutional rights when guns are involved aren't quite so generous of the constitutional rights when freedom of the press is involved.

You have the right to pick you nose in public, it's still not the right thing to do

 

[PaperDoll]

This is my mom's hometown paper; she thinks the map is missing several of her gun-owning neighbors.

Example, a local paper, through the local FOIA, has received the names, occupations and salaries of every public employee in the county with plans to publish. So every cafeteria worker, teacher, admin aid, crossing guard, cop, lawyer, plumber, building inspector... will have their names and salaries published. Public record, certainly. But a deck move. Want to write a story about a bloated bureaucracy using salary information, great. What's the purpose in calling out by name every teacher, fireman and secretary except to prove that the paper, like a dog, can lick it's own balls.

We have had a database of public employee salaries on our website for years. Nobody has threatened anyone who works here with a firearm, as far as I know -- and that has happened to employees of The Journal News.

 

[outofplace]

The real issue is the gun rights folks wanting to punish as many people as possible for what the Journal News did, even if it includes people who had nothing to do with it.

How is that the "real issue"? That issue didn't even arise until after the paper had published the list of gun permit holders - common citizens, just like their staffers.

My comment would have made a heck of a lot more sense if you had left it in context. Please do that next time.

However, I could be clearer. I believe much of the support for the blogger on this thread is from the gun rights crowd because they want to see as many people punished as possible for what the Journal News did, even if it is people who had nothing to do with it.

Whether it is an actual punishment, that's another matter. That was certainly the intent behind it.

 

[KJIM]

Here's what I removed from your quote. It immediately precedes the quoted portion.

"So, it can't be wrong in both cases?

"Sorry, but that's bullshirt. "
---
That's hardly "removing from context." I directly quoted the part I am responding to.

I don't believe in quoting huge back-and-forth exchanges, as it's a waste of space. Anyone who wants to read the entire conversation knows where they can find it.

And I don't think you are right that the blogger wants "as many people punished as possible." My takeaway was, and still is, hey, if you can publish a list of non-lawbreaking citizens just for the heck of it, we can, too.

It has nothing to do with the gun ownership crowd, or whatever you want to term them.

This originated because a newspaper tried to throw its weight around on something what was totally non-newsworthy and someone called them on it, doing to them exactly what they'd done to the gun permit holders.

 

[BenPoquette]

The real issue is the gun rights folks wanting to punish as many people as possible for what the Journal News did, even if it includes people who had nothing to do with it.

How is that the "real issue"? That issue didn't even arise until after the paper had published the list of gun permit holders - common citizens, just like their staffers.

My comment would have made a heck of a lot more sense if you had left it in context. Please do that next time.

However, I could be clearer. I believe much of the support for the blogger on this thread is from the gun rights crowd because they want to see as many people punished as possible for what the Journal News did, even if it is people who had nothing to do with it.

Whether it is an actual punishment, that's another matter. That was certainly the intent behind it.

Don't get me wrong, I totally agree with you. deck move by the paper, deck move by the blogger. I just don't understand why Buck is up in arms about the innocent food editor while, at the same time, ignoring the innocence of the person with a gun permit.
I especially think the paper was ignorant because it published the addresses of a lot of ex-cops. If a criminal with a grudge gets out of jail and feels he has a score to settle, he was just handed an incredible gift from an irresponsible publisher.

 

[Johnny Dangerously]

We seem to have a lot of two-wrongs-make-a-right in politics in this country. Is that what some are saying on this thread?

 

[ringer]

There is news value in the list. There's an underlying issue of public safety. It's not like posting a list of everyone's salaries. No one's going to misfire their paycheck and possibly kill you with the stub.

I know the people on this particular list might not even own guns and a lot of them might have excellent safety training, but it's interesting to see how prevalent the licenses are and how many might be in your back yard. If they removed the names and addresses, I think it would have the same news value.

What I find even more fascinating is how so many people interpret the list as some sort of punishment or invasion. Imo, it's about as invasive as being listed in the phone book. It's just a list. How we interpret it says more about us than it does about the newspaper that decided to publish it.

 

[BenPoquette]

We seem to have a lot of two-wrongs-make-a-right in politics in this country. Is that what some are saying on this thread?

The WORST thing about our society. You really don't even have to read the arguments anymore. One side talks about how Obama has blown up the deficit. The other hits them back with "where were you when George Bush was getting us into two unfunded wars?" So predictable, so pointless. Both sides hate each other. Not going to change until BOTH sides admit a few things...things like George Bush was not the spawn of Satan that stole the 2000 election and was the only one responsible for the United States invading Iraq and Afghanistan. Things like admitting Barack Obama is NOT a closeted muslim that is working to destroy the Unites States and its capitalist system. He was NOT born in Kenya. Blah, blah, blah.
Both sides are so entrenched and the feelings on both sides are so bitter, no one wants to be the first to say, "Hey, my bad. Let's put this all in the past and work forward."

 

[BenPoquette]

What I find even more fascinating is how so many people interpret the list as some sort of punishment or invasion. Imo, it's about as invasive as being listed in the phone book. It's just a list. How we interpret it says more about us than it does about the newspaper that decided to publish it.

Could the gun permit owner opt out, like he/she could with the phone book by choosing to have an unlisted number? Like, for instance, if a woman does not want her psycho ex-husband knowing where she lives she can have her number unlisted. Did the newspaper give her the option before they published her name and address on this list? Apples to oranges.

 

[BenPoquette]

The WORST thing about our society. You really don't even have to read the arguments anymore. One side talks about how Obama has blown up the deficit. The other hits them back with "where were you when George Bush was getting us into two unfunded wars?" So predictable, so pointless. Both sides hate each other. Not going to change until BOTH sides admit a few things...things like George Bush was not the spawn of Satan that stole the 2000 election and was the only one responsible for the United States invading Iraq and Afghanistan. Things like admitting Barack Obama is NOT a closeted muslim that is working to destroy the Unites States and its capitalist system. He was NOT born in Kenya. Blah, blah, blah.
Both sides are so entrenched and the feelings on both sides are so bitter, no one wants to be the first to say, "Hey, my bad. Let's put this all in the past and work forward."

If this bothers you, I'm afraid you may not last very long here, my friend.

No worries, I have lurked for a little while. I know what to expect. From what I have been told, compared to the old days with a different politics board things are peaches and cream around here now. Just curious, because I can't find an archive, does this old politics thread exist anywhere or was it wiped off the face of the Interwebs forever? Thought it would be amusing to browse. Probably better that I don't.