How would liberals respond if the media printed the names of women who had abortions?

[Doc]

I mean some are in favor of invading law abiding citizens privacy by supporting the newspaper who published the names of gun owners (link (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505263_162-57560938/too-far-newspaper-publishes-gun-owner-home-addresses/)). Would they hold the same standard if the names of families who aborted a fetus were made public or would that be a privacy issue?

Of course one could use the argument the other way (would conservatives fight the publication of the names of women who had abortion) however I've never seen that asked for or suggested by anybody on the right short of zealots.

NOTE: This is an analogy. Analogies are similar, not exactly the same. Abortion also has the medical aspect to it so no need to go into "well they are not the same" that seems popular when using analogies.

[Doc]

I should add that most know I'm a gun regulationist but believe strongly in the second amendment (ie-do not favor a gun ban). I do know a few on the left find this approach of publishing the names of legal gun owners as offensive and wrong

[dan_bgblue]

Doc, they would have a running screaming fit, and the MSM would want the folks that published the list, all 23.000 pages of it, hung on the public square.

IMO, the analogy is a very fair one, as both situations are constitutional in nature.

[CitizenBBN]

As Dan said I like the analogy on a constitutional level.

On a public safety level how about the names and addresses of people working 3rd shift, or on vacation? Those who have jewelry over $5K in value? Guns are a prized item to steal. You've just handed criminals valuable information on houses that are defenseless as well as homes you should watch b/c they have guns for the picking.

Following their notion that somehow having a gun in a home is a risk to others, how about publishing name and address of everyone seeing a psychiatrist or on anti-psychotics? How about everyone with a criminal record and not just sexual offenders? They're a risk, right?

They'd be the first to be outraged if it were something they agreed with or cared about.

[Doc]

As Dan said I like the analogy on a constitutional level.

On a public safety level how about the names and addresses of people working 3rd shift, or on vacation? Those who have jewelry over $5K in value? Guns are a prized item to steal. You've just handed criminals valuable information on houses that are defenseless as well as homes you should watch b/c they have guns for the picking.

Following their notion that somehow having a gun in a home is a risk to others, how about publishing name and address of everyone seeing a psychiatrist or on anti-psychotics? How about everyone with a criminal record and not just sexual offenders? They're a risk, right?

They'd be the first to be outraged if it were something they agreed with or cared about.

Or by the same notion you have just told criminal what houses to avoid. Were I a criminal, I'd look for unarmed homes as targets. But regardless of how you look at it, this is something that should not be done. However the root of the problem isn't the publishing of the names but rather the act that allows them to do so (Freedom of information act). IMO there are some things that should fall outside this act. There are somethings that should be private and not for human consumption.

However my point of the topic was/is trying to get folks to look at the other side of the picture. Taking information that you might want to know and having it made public, is that a good thing? Second, is there any level of hypocrisy going on here with the media? Clearly some in the liberal media are fine publishing things that follow their agenda but would they be so quick to publish something that is contra to their agenda? Does the issue matter? Should the issue matter?

[CitizenBBN]

Agree completely Doc.

FWIW since it goes directly to point, Kentucky's concealed carry law specifically makes it illegal to release any information on permit holders other than aggregate statistical data. That includes to other branches of the government. The Ky State Police keep the list and conduct the background checks, etc. CCDW status will show when local law enforcement pull up a person's record but those inquiries are also of course governed by rules.

They did it for just this reason, so someone couldn't get the list and do something stupid like this. It's a matter of both privacy and public safety.

Doc that's why I put in the mental health example. Those people would flip over privacy issues if we put out a list of everyone seeing a therapist or on certain meds, and in that analogy you really aren't helping the criminal element. Here you have both the privacy violation and the public safety irresponsibility.

[CitizenBBN]

Fox interviewed former career burglars who all said exactly what we said: this is invaluable information for criminals to use to either a) avoid homes that could defend themselves, and b) target guns for theft.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/01/04/ex-burglars-say-newspapers-gun-map-wouldve-made-job-easier-safer/

“That’s one of the first things we’d check out—guns are on the top of the list of what you want to steal,” he said. “They can walk out with a shotgun and a couple of handguns and sell them on the street for $300 or $400 a pop. They can sell them to a gangbanger who ends up killing someone.”


...

Frank Abagnale, who was portrayed by Leonardo DiCaprio in the 2002 film “Catch Me if You Can,” and is perhaps the most famous reformed thief to ever earn a legitimate living by offering the public insight into the criminal mind, called the newspaper’s actions “reprehensible.”
“It is unbelievable that a newspaper or so called journalist would publish the names and addresses of legal gun owners, including federal agents, law enforcement officers and the like,” said Abagnale, who noted that he grew up in the suburban New York area served by the Journal-News. “This would be equivalent to publishing the names of individuals who keep substantial sums of money, jewelry and valuables in their home.”




Of course this is all beyond obvious to anyone with the slightest amount of common sense. That of course excludes these reporters (and most other reporters in fact) and the legislators of Connecticut who require a record of every gun owner.

A shocking lack of thought and judgment. They have unintentionally (I hope) put guns in the hands of criminals and put everyone's lives in their community at greater risk.

That is the definition of a zealot to me. Someone so focused on their narrow fear or issue they ignore any amount of damage they do elsewhere in pursuit of addressing that narrow sliver of the world. They've lost all common sense, all perspective, and end up only making things worse.

[CatinIL]

In my opinion...

1490

[CattyWampus]

However the root of the problem isn't the publishing of the names but rather the act that allows them to do so (Freedom of information act). IMO there are some things that should fall outside this act. There are somethings that should be private and not for human consumption.


I rarely watch FoxNews, but when I get a tweet from Peter Johnson Jr. that he will be on-air, I try to flip over to hear what he has to say. He thinks that the FOIA does not give the paper the right to the lists because of the safety exemption.

Here's (http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/fox-friends/index.html#/v/2072031482001/new-york-newspaper-plans-to-out-more-gun-owners/?playlist_id=86912) what he had to say about it this morning.

[CattyWampus]

Now the media has revealed the location of gun owners in Texas.

1491

[CitizenBBN]

lol. About the same for Kentucky. Everyone I talk to either has one or thinks they need to get one.

[CattyWampus]

Map of the U.S. with the address of all criminals with guns. (http://twitpic.com/bsjyz1)

[CitizenBBN]

http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/articles/2013/1/another-double-standard.aspx

Like this quote:


"The safety of my staff is my top priority," said Janet Hasson, the president and publisher of The Journal News Media Group. And what about the safety of law-abiding citizens who happen to own firearms?

I think the answer would be: screw those gun nuts. Oh and screw the people who will be robbed or have home invasions b/c they don't have a gun too.

[CitizenBBN]

Update -- Inmates at the prison are using the information to try to intimidate guards b/c now they know where the guards and their families live. It's also exposed a lot of NYPD and other police officers who live there.

The list reported everyone including police, prison guards, etc. Now their name and address is available to every criminal and inmate with which they interact.

What they did was beyond reprehensible. There are apparently 1,000s of these men and women with their families now at risk.

Can't imagine a lawsuit isn't coming. If they can testify about the intimidation they have damage.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/01/04/law-enforcement-latest-critics-on-public-display-gun-owner-data-officers/?intcmp=obinsite

[UKHistory]

What a horrible invasion of privacy. I am sickened by Newtown's nightmare. Who isn't? But more than ever I believe in the second amendment and feel compelled to purchase firearms before the right is abolished.

[CitizenBBN]

Among others "outed" included former prosecutor and judge Jeanine Pirro currently at Fox News.

Here's a video from her show, including them sending a Fox producer to do a little "in kind" harassment at their offices and the publisher's home. Normally I'm against ambush reporting but in this case I think it's almost a moral imperative since that's what they did to these people.

http://video.foxnews.com/v/2090870999001/

Like she said, in 30 years as a prosecutor and judge she only had one case where a legally owned and permitted gun was used in a murder. Just one. Yet those are the people this paper put in danger.

Oh, the publisher had apparently armed security at her home. Too bad all the families she put in danger can't afford the same.

FWIW the list includes battered women who got a gun to defend themselves. As if listing the locations of police officer's families isn't enough.