Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Tech Crunch)   Remember how that newspaper published names and addresses of gun owners? Well, do unto others   (techcrunch.com ) divider line
    More: Followup  
•       •       •

33361 clicks; posted to Main » on 27 Dec 2012 at 6:30 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



1061 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2012-12-27 09:51:44 AM  
I live smack-dab in the middle of this graph.

The fact that almost none of my (non-Italian) neighbors own guns now makes me feel compelled to explore the option, as we are an out-of-the-way tony neighborhood bordering on some sketchy areas with a small history of break-ins.

This map is ringing the dinnerbell on all the thieves who have or will target our area.

Thanks Journal News, love an ex-employee (paperboy in early 80s back when it was The Reporter Dispatch)
 
2012-12-27 09:51:50 AM  

The Muthaship: Boudica's War Tampon: The Muthaship: Boudica's War Tampon: All it's going to do is get people killed

I think it's highly unlikely that any of these journalists will be harmed as a result of this.

About as unlikely as 20+ school children being slaughter in their classrooms...

Rhetorically weak, and patently unrelated.


Unrelated? Why did the lawyer tell the editor "Thousands of readers, Janet, have a nice Christmas Eve" if he didn't anticipate nutjobs showing up at her door and lots of other doors heavily armed with their Constitutional rights locked and loaded? Very much related.
 
2012-12-27 09:52:02 AM  
So, a bunch of public information is still public information? Is it really news, if nothing has changed?

\by all means, don't let that stop you 'tards from furiously pressing that 'Add Comment' button, ad nauseum...
 
2012-12-27 09:52:25 AM  

RexTalionis: utah dude: [imageshack.us image 640x480]

Yeah, see, that's a total fail. You know why there's no overlap? Because the map of homicides only account for New York City (i.e. the 5 boroughs - 1. Manhattan, 2. Brooklyn, 3. Queens, 4. The Bronx, and 5. Staten Island). The map of gunowners only account for Westchester County (which is, I might adD, not one of the 5 buroughs).

Totally non-overlapping sets.

So, yeah, you're a dumbass for using that map.


Actually, he's wronger than you thought. The map doesn't even account for Staten Island in homicide stats.
 
2012-12-27 09:52:35 AM  

Boudica's War Tampon: So two wrongs do make a right. Got it. I'm sure someone out there believes three wrongs make an even righter right. Can I hear four? Who'll give me four wrongs?

Had the lawyer wanted to do the proper thing, he could have organized a class-action against the paper. Would they have been successful? Probably the case would have dismissed very quickly. But a legal solution would have been far more attractive than what the lawyer did out of revenge and retaliation.


So you agree that the journalists had no good reason to publish this information? And that doing so neither advanced the debate nor contributed to the public good in any way?
 
2012-12-27 09:52:40 AM  

Holocaust Agnostic: Wait, productive means something other than getting the other side mad?


Possibly a bad choice of words. I guess it depends on what you want to produce, exactly. But since both sides purport that they're fighting for the public good here, well yeah. You'd expect "public good" wouldn't be terribly well-served by a pot-shotting competition like this.

I keep hearing all this "Newtown will be the final straw" nonsense. And it's nonsense precisely because the 'final straw' will never fall till we can have a productive discussion.

Sure as hell haven't seen significant signs of that yet, from either camp. There's the odd voice of reason here or there, sure. And I suppose maybe there's a case to be made that sane and rational discourse doesn't make for thrilling media coverage...
 
2012-12-27 09:53:01 AM  

Generation_D: Jumpedthefark: I'd like to see a "map of the week" from these guys. Let's start with Muslim homes and then millionaires.

I bet you could get this funded!   Great start-up idea...


Could you post homes of women with low self-esteem and poor eye-sight? Thanx!
 
2012-12-27 09:53:08 AM  

ArgusRun: We publish the names and addresses of sex offenders.

A child is more likely to be killed in a house with a gun than in one without a gun. The map of gun owners seems like useful information for a parent to have.
/Also, for the record, this is handgun map. Other firearms aren't included.


And a child is even more likely to die in house that has a swimming pool. Where's your outrage and map of pool owners?
 
2012-12-27 09:53:14 AM  

Cybernetic: I think publishing the map was silly and stupid and childish, and indicative of an emotional, knee-jerk reaction of hatred toward guns and gun owners that is not based in any real understanding of the fact that the overwhelming majority of gun owners are just as peaceful and law-abiding as the editorial board of The Journal News.


This is the difference between "We need to get these guns off the streets!" and the "We need to do a better job teaching our kids that killing is wrong!".
 
2012-12-27 09:54:34 AM  
I thought gun owners were safer. Isn't this a case where the non-gun owners should complain that they are marked as easy targets?
 
2012-12-27 09:55:08 AM  

thurstonxhowell: RexTalionis: utah dude: [imageshack.us image 640x480]

Yeah, see, that's a total fail. You know why there's no overlap? Because the map of homicides only account for New York City (i.e. the 5 boroughs - 1. Manhattan, 2. Brooklyn, 3. Queens, 4. The Bronx, and 5. Staten Island). The map of gunowners only account for Westchester County (which is, I might adD, not one of the 5 buroughs).

Totally non-overlapping sets.

So, yeah, you're a dumbass for using that map.

Actually, he's wronger than you thought. The map doesn't even account for Staten Island in homicide stats.


For some reason, I thought the original map accounted for the entire 5 boroughs.
 
2012-12-27 09:55:16 AM  

namatad: I have a hypocritical sister. She is actively against abortion. But she had an abortion.
I wonder how things might change if some private things all of a sudden became public.
Santorum and Rmoney's wives both had abortions. WBush's drug rehab record. Clinton's paternity tests.
Every politicians exact income, including all the bribes and insider info.
this could make for an interesting change in society


So would she be upset that you just made it public Peter?
 
2012-12-27 09:56:35 AM  

DROxINxTHExWIND: We can both play that game. We know what was implied. Don't be obtuse.


You determined from that that he's advocating shooting journalists.
 
2012-12-27 09:56:45 AM  

LouDobbsAwaaaay: doglover: That takes time. Best just to call them on their personal cell and make sure they can fix the stories as soon as possible.

25.media.tumblr.com

 
2012-12-27 09:56:45 AM  

italie: Always loaded, and by my door. Not afraid to use it either.

[thewondrous.com image 628x334]

//My world is a happy place...


image.guardian.co.uk
 
2012-12-27 09:57:01 AM  

namatad: Santorum and Rmoney's wives both had abortions.


I'm fairly sure neither of these are true.
 
2012-12-27 09:57:28 AM  

xmasbaby: ArgusRun: We publish the names and addresses of sex offenders.

A child is more likely to be killed in a house with a gun than in one without a gun. The map of gun owners seems like useful information for a parent to have.
/Also, for the record, this is handgun map. Other firearms aren't included.

And a child is even more likely to die in house that has a swimming pool. Where's your outrage and map of pool owners?


Do you often drop your child off at a house only to later be surprised that there was a swimming pool hidden somewhere? Perhaps tucked away under a... oh right, no one hides a swimming pool and Google maps satellite view is essentially already a map of pool owners.

Not that I agree with that particular bit of think of the children scaremongering about guns, but it's a bit different of a situation with pools.
 
2012-12-27 09:58:28 AM  

DROxINxTHExWIND: We can both play that game. We know what was implied. Don't be obtuse.


So that's your angle
 
2012-12-27 09:58:36 AM  

ronaprhys: Boudica's War Tampon: So two wrongs do make a right. Got it. I'm sure someone out there believes three wrongs make an even righter right. Can I hear four? Who'll give me four wrongs?

Had the lawyer wanted to do the proper thing, he could have organized a class-action against the paper. Would they have been successful? Probably the case would have dismissed very quickly. But a legal solution would have been far more attractive than what the lawyer did out of revenge and retaliation.

So you agree that the journalists had no good reason to publish this information? And that doing so neither advanced the debate nor contributed to the public good in any way?


Did I defend the newspaper? Nope. But trying to foment violence against someone who has wronged you is barbaric and a lawyer, a person trained to advance the rule of law, is the last person who should pull a violent, cheap, attack like that.
 
2012-12-27 09:59:00 AM  

RexTalionis: For some reason, I thought the original map accounted for the entire 5 boroughs.


finally somebody smart attacks the map. stars for you. :)

can we compile nationwide geospatial data on registered guns, crime, population density, and income, plz?
 
2012-12-27 09:59:18 AM  

Generation_D: ronaprhys: Generation_D:
As far as I'm aware, journalists have not been shooting unarmed children lately.

I highly doubt a journalist is not already intimately familiar with the ins and outs of having their private lives made public.  They put their real name in the media daily.  Which is more than any of us does.

I'm unaware that any of these people shot anyone. Gods, you're a douchebag.

Generation_D:
It is public information.  It was already "published."

The media is making use of public information.

I am already on many lists on the internet!  So are you!  zomg!

That's actually a lie. It wasn't published. It was available to search if you filed an FOIA. There's a difference between that and an interactive map. To ignore that difference shows that you're not even willing to have an honest discussion on the subject.

As for many lists, no, I'm not. A very small amount of my personal information is publicly available. Any other lists that I might be on (due to forum memberships, online shopping, etc) aren't publicly-available and if they were made so I could sue.

At least you arent threatening to shoot them with your Bushmaster.  Thats a start.

Your FOIA point is valid, but sort of pointless unless you're advocating that the FOIA requests be denied due to some made-up exception that only applies to gun owners.

As for disclosing journalists whereabouts, that sounds remarkably like something they used to do in the old USSR.  Comrade.


Why is that? Do journalists deserve additional protections from their information being released for some reason? If I can find someones information without resorting to illegal means then isn't that information public anyway? The obvious intent of this was to intimidate gun owners into changing their positions and giving people the ability to go confront gun owners personally to let them know how they feel. Why shouldn't I be able to do the same thing to a journalist?
 
2012-12-27 09:59:39 AM  

thurstonxhowell: xmasbaby: ArgusRun: We publish the names and addresses of sex offenders.

A child is more likely to be killed in a house with a gun than in one without a gun. The map of gun owners seems like useful information for a parent to have.
/Also, for the record, this is handgun map. Other firearms aren't included.

And a child is even more likely to die in house that has a swimming pool. Where's your outrage and map of pool owners?

Do you often drop your child off at a house only to later be surprised that there was a swimming pool hidden somewhere? Perhaps tucked away under a... oh right, no one hides a swimming pool and Google maps satellite view is essentially already a map of pool owners.

Not that I agree with that particular bit of think of the children scaremongering about guns, but it's a bit different of a situation with pools.


I dunno bout you but gangers around here always walk around with pools hidden shoved down their pants.

Its a rough town.
 
2012-12-27 09:59:41 AM  

monoski: I thought gun owners were safer. Isn't this a case where the non-gun owners should complain that they are marked as easy targets?


I could see doing that. It'd be amusing. Basically, anyone with half a brain should be calling to complain. Either you've made me a target (by the logic that I'm unarmed) or you've made me a target (by the logic that a criminal might want to try and steal my firearm) - with neither instance serving any public good.
 
2012-12-27 09:59:42 AM  

xmasbaby: ArgusRun: We publish the names and addresses of sex offenders.

A child is more likely to be killed in a house with a gun than in one without a gun. The map of gun owners seems like useful information for a parent to have.
/Also, for the record, this is handgun map. Other firearms aren't included.

And a child is even more likely to die in house that has a swimming pool. Where's your outrage and map of pool owners?


Google earth has easily viewed aerials of pools.

Also, pools need permits and fences. There are more regulations regarding the building and keeping of pools than there are guns.
 
2012-12-27 10:00:45 AM  

Boudica's War Tampon: ronaprhys: Boudica's War Tampon: So two wrongs do make a right. Got it. I'm sure someone out there believes three wrongs make an even righter right. Can I hear four? Who'll give me four wrongs?

Had the lawyer wanted to do the proper thing, he could have organized a class-action against the paper. Would they have been successful? Probably the case would have dismissed very quickly. But a legal solution would have been far more attractive than what the lawyer did out of revenge and retaliation.

So you agree that the journalists had no good reason to publish this information? And that doing so neither advanced the debate nor contributed to the public good in any way?

Did I defend the newspaper? Nope. But trying to foment violence against someone who has wronged you is barbaric and a lawyer, a person trained to advance the rule of law, is the last person who should pull a violent, cheap, attack like that.


That actually didn't answer the question. Was the newspaper wrong for doing this? Not did you defend them, but were they wrong.
 
2012-12-27 10:01:14 AM  

Boudica's War Tampon: a person trained to advance the rule of law, is the last person who should pull a violent, cheap, attack like that.


Have you ever met a lawyer?
 
2012-12-27 10:01:25 AM  

rocinante721: I live smack-dab in the middle of this graph.

The fact that almost none of my (non-Italian) neighbors own guns now makes me feel compelled to explore the option, as we are an out-of-the-way tony neighborhood bordering on some sketchy areas with a small history of break-ins.

This map is ringing the dinnerbell on all the thieves who have or will target our area.

Thanks Journal News, love an ex-employee (paperboy in early 80s back when it was The Reporter Dispatch)


That's exactly how I feel here in Rockland County.

Are you getting a gun? I'd love to hear your reasoning.
 
2012-12-27 10:01:48 AM  

fonebone77: The obvious intent of this was to intimidate gun owners into changing their positions and giving people the ability to go confront gun owners personally to let them know how they feel. Why shouldn't I be able to do the same thing to a journalist?


So you agree that the journalist was in the right to make the map of gun owners, yes?
 
2012-12-27 10:02:20 AM  

ronaprhys: PopularFront: This was the perfect opportunity for gun owners to gain a modicum of sympathy for being the victims of douchbaggery and deal with it by taking the high road (thus demonstrating the maturity and restraint that everyone wants gun owners to have). The ITG schtick is about the worst response. It just reinforces peoples view that gun owners are angry, combative, and violent.

I agree - there were plenty of other ways to handle this, up to an including legal action. I would've preferred they took that. However, if this happens and journalists learn to never do something stupid like this again, it won't be all bad.

Seriously - there was absolutely no good nor useful reason to publish this information. It neither advances the debate nor serves in public good. There should be repercussions for doing idiotic things.


It was a gimmick that has paid off for them by giving them a huge amount of publicity. It will happen again as it has happened before.

I would have preferred repercussions take the form of sympathy from the public towards gun owners. We can use all we can get after Newtown.
 
2012-12-27 10:02:38 AM  

probesport: DROxINxTHExWIND: We can both play that game. We know what was implied. Don't be obtuse.

So that's your angle


pokerfraudalert.com
 
2012-12-27 10:03:48 AM  

Triumph: 1. The guy they arrested in the woods at the edge of the school who was wearing camo and screaming "I didn't do it." Who is he? What's the story there?


So very, very late to the thread. I'm sure this has been addressed several times, but it struck me so here it is:

Hmmmm... let's try to suss this one out. Late fall, a man dressed in camo, armed, coming out of the woods...

I don't know but it seems to be happening all over the country!! There are THOUSANDS of them! They show up every year! And some of them are dragging... *gasp* The carcases of DEAD ANIMALS!

Oh the horror.

Really??
 
2012-12-27 10:04:15 AM  

ArgusRun: xmasbaby: ArgusRun: We publish the names and addresses of sex offenders.

A child is more likely to be killed in a house with a gun than in one without a gun. The map of gun owners seems like useful information for a parent to have.
/Also, for the record, this is handgun map. Other firearms aren't included.

And a child is even more likely to die in house that has a swimming pool. Where's your outrage and map of pool owners?

Google earth has easily viewed aerials of pools.

Also, pools need permits and fences. There are more regulations regarding the building and keeping of pools than there are guns.


I don't see anyone shouting how their is no reason to have a pull more than 4` deep or diving boards are just for fun and no one using a pool to cool down would ever need one.
 
2012-12-27 10:04:31 AM  

Kimothy: GAT_00: iq_in_binary: Put me and my roommate and girlfriend in danger

How?  Isn't the whole argument that if people know you have a gun you're safe?

It's been my experience - after living for years with relatives on the police force - that gun owners are the ones that live most in fear of others. Hence the need for a gun. So yeah, of course he assumes he's in danger.

//Sure he thinks he's one of the exceptions.


Are both of you intentionally ignorant?

It's the same thing as removing the GPS from your car dashboard when you park. You don't try to invite thieves.
 
2012-12-27 10:05:15 AM  

PopularFront: ronaprhys: PopularFront: This was the perfect opportunity for gun owners to gain a modicum of sympathy for being the victims of douchbaggery and deal with it by taking the high road (thus demonstrating the maturity and restraint that everyone wants gun owners to have). The ITG schtick is about the worst response. It just reinforces peoples view that gun owners are angry, combative, and violent.

I agree - there were plenty of other ways to handle this, up to an including legal action. I would've preferred they took that. However, if this happens and journalists learn to never do something stupid like this again, it won't be all bad.

Seriously - there was absolutely no good nor useful reason to publish this information. It neither advances the debate nor serves in public good. There should be repercussions for doing idiotic things.

It was a gimmick that has paid off for them by giving them a huge amount of publicity. It will happen again as it has happened before.

I would have preferred repercussions take the form of sympathy from the public towards gun owners. We can use all we can get after Newtown.


No disagreement, but has anyone published the names of the journalists before? Now that I think about it, this probably won't stop idiots from doing this again. If something goes wrong, they'll act like martyrs when really they're just idiots.
 
2012-12-27 10:05:29 AM  

Boudica's War Tampon: The Muthaship: Boudica's War Tampon: All it's going to do is get people killed

I think it's highly unlikely that any of these journalists will be harmed as a result of this.

About as unlikely as 20+ school children being slaughter in their classrooms...


Mass shootings: 0-20 deaths per year
Defensive gun uses: about 1 million per year
A stranger (i.e. someone you didn't know beforehand) murdering someone in general: a bit over 2000 (14% of murders, roughly) deaths a year
Someone the victim knew previously murdering them in general: 15000 ish deaths a year

Yes, clearly framing the issue of legal gun ownership risks versus benefits entirely in terms of mass shootings is a totally rational thing that someone entirely capable of outsmarting a doorknob might do, and not the province of gibbering retards with nothing meaningful to contribute to life in general, much less policy discussions.

Totally a useful perspective we should all pay attention to when making decision that impact the execution of basic civil rights for decades.

You see, what the discussion around changing the law to allow interracial marriage needed, for instance, was more hysterical anecdotes about black men who murdered their white wives. The discussion on gay marriage? Only examples from actual sex clubs, polygamist cults, and Haloween on the Castro allowed. And I heard a story that one time, someone voted for someone without even knowing anything beyond the candidate's party affiliation! Can't allow single statistical anomalies to happen, I think we need to start having a discussion on vote control, but the media's only allowed to use stories about people engaged in actual fraud for examples, not anything statistically likely to be impacted by a change in law. We're not doing that shiat anymore.
 
2012-12-27 10:06:19 AM  

ronaprhys: Boudica's War Tampon: ronaprhys: Boudica's War Tampon: So two wrongs do make a right. Got it. I'm sure someone out there believes three wrongs make an even righter right. Can I hear four? Who'll give me four wrongs?

Had the lawyer wanted to do the proper thing, he could have organized a class-action against the paper. Would they have been successful? Probably the case would have dismissed very quickly. But a legal solution would have been far more attractive than what the lawyer did out of revenge and retaliation.

So you agree that the journalists had no good reason to publish this information? And that doing so neither advanced the debate nor contributed to the public good in any way?

Did I defend the newspaper? Nope. But trying to foment violence against someone who has wronged you is barbaric and a lawyer, a person trained to advance the rule of law, is the last person who should pull a violent, cheap, attack like that.

That actually didn't answer the question. Was the newspaper wrong for doing this? Not did you defend them, but were they wrong.


The lawyer obviously felt what the newspaper did was wrong. He will probably end up being disbarred for what he did out of revenge. Which is a lot less suffering than what some of those named will endure, thanks to the attitude that two wrongs make a right.
 
2012-12-27 10:07:12 AM  

Cybernetic: Generation_D: If the records were not intended to be made public, why have them in the first place.  Is there a new class of record called "public but not really good to let anyone know about" ?

They're either public or they aren't.

Amazing that you can trace my property ownership, my marriage status, my car ownership etc all on line now, with little controversy, with plenty of "good" reasons to do so.

But using existing law to trace gun ownership, and holy crap the gun nuts flip out.  Which is interesting, since gun nuts flipping out is what got us here in the first place.

Perhaps you gun owners need to work on your not flipping out skills, and do it without resorting to threats about what you'd like to do with your guns.

As I said upthread, the problem is not that this information is publicly available. I could have compiled all of the same information that was published in the newspaper. But I could not have published it in a newspaper, because I don't own a newspaper. What the paper did was make the information readily available to those who have neither the time nor the inclination to compile it themselves.

I doubt that you expect all of that information on your property ownership, marital status and car ownership to end up on the front page of The Journal News. It could, but I'd wager that you'd be surprised if it did, and possibly uncomfortable.

Were the author and editor and publisher of the paper within their rights to print the map? Yes. Just as they would have been within their rights to publish photos of the dead bodies from Sandy Hook Elementary. Part of their job is to exercise editorial discretion--to draw the line that separates what they can do from what they should do. That line is subjective, and opinions will differ as to whether what they did was appropriate.

I think publishing the map was silly and stupid and childish, and indicative of an emotional, knee-jerk reaction of hatred toward guns and gun owners that is not based in any re ...


20 years ago, a whole bunch of rules changed on the internet when the Wayback machine / archive.org, and dejanews came into being.  Up until that time, if you had posted something on a BBS or usenet site, or put up a web site, you could rest assured that in a few weeks it would be expired away, filling up space in some un-indexed archive or going off to live out its days on a tape archive as some college, never to be seen again.

And then google bought dejanews.

Every internet usenet post going back to the mid 1980s was suddenly available on line, free, indexable, searchable.

I know of at least one marriage this helped to break up, as long forgotten information was suddenly public.  The rules changed.

I am telling you this tale now to hopefully show you how computers that are networked together work: Sooner or later someone figures out there's a trove of data someplace, and they come up with a new and (for them) exciting use.

Why is gun ownership indexable any different?  Why do gun owners get special rights?  Deciding to be a gun owner is already telling the world that your own private imagined need to own supercedes anyone else's right to being safe around you, that I must now be concerned with your mental health and your mental well being -- and my only defense, I am told, is to join you in your paranoid fantasy and own a gun myself.

The least you can do is allow me to know how many of you there are, and where you live.  Though this map is only confirming what we non gun owners already knew -- we're surrounded by gun owners.

Two points:  1) There is no privacy, the rules change, get used to it, and 2) You chose to own a gun, just like I chose to own property or own a car or buy things with a credit card, or have a phone number, or sign a legal document that is on file, or get married, or any numbers of other activities that at any moment the rules could change for and could be made available to all, and under less than optimal circumstances.

I bet you don't remember Neal Horsley.  He was a fun fellow, liked to exercise his free speech rights on the internet.  One fine day Neal decided he would publish a list of doctors that provided abortions.  Names, addresses, phones, cities.  Not content to do that, Neal also put a big X on every doctor's name who had been murdered already by a freedom-loving 2nd amendment supporting patriot.  Big red X, with blood dripping animated gif.

The court said he had a free speech right to do it.  And we had to leave it up for months til his court case wound through the legal system.

And the moment it was declared it was a "clear and present danger" and met certain legal standards as being a personal threat, I got the privilege of deleting that scumbag's sh*t from the ISP's server where I worked.

So you see kids.  Publishing on the internet does not meet the "clear and present danger" standard, so it is OK to do.  Even if it ruins marriages.  Which your damn gun owner list hasn't even done.  Much less threaten to murder anyone by putting a big red X and blood dripping animated gifs on their name.

The internet screwed with privacy a long time ago.  Sorry this is just now becoming news to some of you.
 
2012-12-27 10:07:41 AM  
In this area of the country, a map should be published showing those who don't have a gun permit. The majority of which own arsenals, really. You actually need a permit to buy a NY Times here.
 
2012-12-27 10:08:05 AM  

feckingmorons: Journalistic integrity is gone, it is all agenda driven sensationalization.


Did it ever really exist except in the minds of so called "professional" journalists?

www.thecanadiancharger.com
 
2012-12-27 10:09:07 AM  

ktybear: Kimothy: Jesus, they're all farking children. Grow up, especially if you own a damn gun.

Done in bloody one

Your gun debate is boring.

But the US loves the sound of its own voice, a constant drone across the world, like a petulant child with too many toys to clean up.


Funny how the world screams for those toys every time it gets in trouble. How'd that lend-lease work out for you? Still not speaking German, eh?

You've got your own media. If you're so sick of US news, don't cover it. We don't force you.

/old world idiots. And the "UK" of all countries shouldn't talk about hearing its drone around the world. Because your (one-time) empire was so well-loved and enlightened?
 
2012-12-27 10:09:12 AM  

Boudica's War Tampon: ronaprhys: Boudica's War Tampon: ronaprhys: Boudica's War Tampon: So two wrongs do make a right. Got it. I'm sure someone out there believes three wrongs make an even righter right. Can I hear four? Who'll give me four wrongs?

Had the lawyer wanted to do the proper thing, he could have organized a class-action against the paper. Would they have been successful? Probably the case would have dismissed very quickly. But a legal solution would have been far more attractive than what the lawyer did out of revenge and retaliation.

So you agree that the journalists had no good reason to publish this information? And that doing so neither advanced the debate nor contributed to the public good in any way?

Did I defend the newspaper? Nope. But trying to foment violence against someone who has wronged you is barbaric and a lawyer, a person trained to advance the rule of law, is the last person who should pull a violent, cheap, attack like that.

That actually didn't answer the question. Was the newspaper wrong for doing this? Not did you defend them, but were they wrong.

The lawyer obviously felt what the newspaper did was wrong. He will probably end up being disbarred for what he did out of revenge. Which is a lot less suffering than what some of those named will endure, thanks to the attitude that two wrongs make a right.


So it's okay for a newspaper to release the names of innocent people, but it's not okay for a lawyer to release the names of another, smaller group of innocent people; keeping in mind ALL of this information is public already.

I don't get it.
 
2012-12-27 10:09:36 AM  

thurstonxhowell: fonebone77: The obvious intent of this was to intimidate gun owners into changing their positions and giving people the ability to go confront gun owners personally to let them know how they feel. Why shouldn't I be able to do the same thing to a journalist?

So you agree that the journalist was in the right to make the map of gun owners, yes?


In the right legally, yes. I am still free to think he was a jerk for doing it. The lawyer was also a jerk for doing what he did. That doesn't mean we are approaching a KGBish system because someone knows where a journalist lives and can personally tell him what they think of him.
 
2012-12-27 10:10:37 AM  
So what has the staff had to say?

I would expect them to be happy and invite everyone to stop by for a beer and a discussion about gun control.
 
2012-12-27 10:10:53 AM  

GoldSpider: DROxINxTHExWIND: We can both play that game. We know what was implied. Don't be obtuse.

You determined from that that he's advocating shooting journalists.


Yes. You seem to be shocked that ITGs exist. Lets not start acting like Farkers are above wishing folks dead. The guy went to all of the trouble to type the sound that is made when you clear your throat. But, I'm sure he meant *ahem* nothing by it.
 
2012-12-27 10:11:03 AM  

hasty ambush: feckingmorons: Journalistic integrity is gone, it is all agenda driven sensationalization.

Did it ever really exist except in the minds of so called "professional" journalists?

[www.thecanadiancharger.com image 425x319]


Well, good journalism used to exist - it has never predominiated or been representative of the industry.
 
2012-12-27 10:11:05 AM  

doglover: LouDobbsAwaaaay: doglover: That takes time. Best just to call them on their personal cell and make sure they can fix the stories as soon as possible.

[25.media.tumblr.com image 160x160]


Again, you're substituting cheeky, obtuse garbage for actual substance. Even you aren't buying what you're saying.
 
2012-12-27 10:11:47 AM  

Boudica's War Tampon: The lawyer obviously felt what the newspaper did was wrong. He will probably end up being disbarred for what he did out of revenge. Which is a lot less suffering than what some of those named will endure, thanks to the attitude that two wrongs make a right.


I'd expect advocates and activists to be dicks. All of these websites linking to the blog -- which would have gone unnoticed otherwise -- are just as irresponsible as the newspaper.
 
2012-12-27 10:12:32 AM  

Generation_D: Cybernetic: Generation_D: If the records were not intended to be made public, why have them in the first place.  Is there a new class of record called "public but not really good to let anyone know about" ?

They're either public or they aren't.

Amazing that you can trace my property ownership, my marriage status, my car ownership etc all on line now, with little controversy, with plenty of "good" reasons to do so.

But using existing law to trace gun ownership, and holy crap the gun nuts flip out.  Which is interesting, since gun nuts flipping out is what got us here in the first place.

Perhaps you gun owners need to work on your not flipping out skills, and do it without resorting to threats about what you'd like to do with your guns.

As I said upthread, the problem is not that this information is publicly available. I could have compiled all of the same information that was published in the newspaper. But I could not have published it in a newspaper, because I don't own a newspaper. What the paper did was make the information readily available to those who have neither the time nor the inclination to compile it themselves.

I doubt that you expect all of that information on your property ownership, marital status and car ownership to end up on the front page of The Journal News. It could, but I'd wager that you'd be surprised if it did, and possibly uncomfortable.

Were the author and editor and publisher of the paper within their rights to print the map? Yes. Just as they would have been within their rights to publish photos of the dead bodies from Sandy Hook Elementary. Part of their job is to exercise editorial discretion--to draw the line that separates what they can do from what they should do. That line is subjective, and opinions will differ as to whether what they did was appropriate.

I think publishing the map was silly and stupid and childish, and indicative of an emotional, knee-jerk reaction of hatred toward guns and gun owners that is not based i ...


So you'd be okay with an index of all non-gun owners being published with a searchable map with a big happy smiley face over their house? It's public information, after all. No threat implied.
 
2012-12-27 10:12:41 AM  

Generation_D:
So you see kids. Publishing on the internet does not meet the "clear and present danger" standard, so it is OK to do. Even if it ruins marriages. Which your damn gun owner list hasn't even done. Much less threaten to murder anyone by putting a big red X and blood dripping animated gifs on their name.

The internet screwed with privacy a long time ago. Sorry this is just now becoming news to some of you..


You do know the difference between posting information on the internet of your own free will, and being forced to provide that information by the government right? Trust me, most gun owners would NOT provide that information if they weren't legally compelled to do so.
 
2012-12-27 10:12:48 AM  

GAT_00: To various people,

The point I'm making is that pro-gun people always say guns stop crime, they make everyone safer, the whole nine yards.  You know the lines, I don't have to repeat them.  So knowing that this person has a gun must make them safer, right?

I should note that I actually do think this was an asshole thing of the paper to do, but I am fully using it to argue what I think are non-sensical pro-gun arguments about safety that have glaring holes in them.


Personally I don't think home invasion robbery types check the internet and do their research before they go on a robbery spree. To that end, this information war stuff is a non starter.

But I do enjoy media comeuppance. Someone was trying to stir up some shenanigans, and they have to face the backlash.
 
Displayed 50 of 1061 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter








In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report