NY Newspaper Publishes all Gun Owners' Names and Addresses

[Pr0d1gy]

So saying someone has a gun is defamatory? Or makes them look ridiculous? You have a low, low opinion of gun owners. They are people as well.

So why wouldn't the press be allowed to publish public information? Who should say what information they can publish? Do they need to run everything past you first?

It's nothing to do with the 2nd. The papers aren't limiting your access to guns. In what way is this going to prevent you buying a gun? You might choose not to, but that's your decision.

Ok fatty.

I can lose weight, you'll still be an ugly government dependent moppet.

It defames them because of the intent of the article. derp

 

[WelshBloke]

I can lose weight, you'll still be an ugly government dependent moppet.

It defames them because of the intent of the article. derp

Again how is it defamatory to say that someone has a gun if they have a gun?

It's okay fatty I've not claimed any money from the government in a long time and my mum says I'm very handsome thank you. Good luck with the weight loss though, it's a bitch at this time of the year apparently.

You should be careful though, fat and angry can be a very unhealthy combination.

 

[Pr0d1gy]

Again how is it defamatory to say that someone has a gun if they have a gun?

It's okay fatty I've not claimed any money from the government in a long time and my mum says I'm very handsome thank you. Good luck with the weight loss though, it's a bitch at this time of the year apparently.

You should be careful though, fat and angry can be a very unhealthy combination.

lol Angry left a long time ago kid. Enjoy being ugly your entire life, and tell your mom she still owes me 2 pounds from the last time I banged her.

It defamatory because they posted this information to paint these people in negative light. Why do I have to spell this shit out for you? Schools in England are SO overrated, obviously.

 

[WelshBloke]

lol Angry left a long time ago kid. Enjoy being ugly your entire life, and tell your mom she still owes me 2 pounds from the last time I banged her.

Yes I can tell that you're totally calm there.

It defamatory because they posted this information to paint these people in negative light. Why do I have to spell this shit out for you? Schools in England are SO overrated, obviously.

You have to spell it out because you just saying that it's so doesn't make it so.

So what negative light have all these people been painted in by the papers? And are you saying that it should be illegal portray people in a negative light in the papers? And you call others government shills.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Yes, and that's all fine.

This is all public information though. They aren't digging up illegal sources, they aren't going door-to-door taking pictures of people's kids, reading their mail to get names, and writing down home addresses. They didn't generate anything new.

People seem to be upset that their publicly available information is actually publicly available.

Well let's apply your "gee golly wiz" logic to other publicly available information. How about a listing of all black people and any associated criminal records? All known gays? Gee golly wiz, if it's public you'd embrace it. Right.

 

[WelshBloke]

Well let's apply your "gee golly wiz" logic to other publicly available information. How about a listing of all black people and any associated criminal records? All known gays? Gee golly wiz, if it's public you'd embrace it. Right.

Aren't court cases regularly reported on?

Is there an official public list of gay people?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Aren't court cases regularly reported on?

Is there an official public list of gay people?

Sure cases are reported. A paper can therefore take that information and "helpfully" sort it. Think how "beneficial" that would have been during the '50's in the US south. As far as gays, if someone mentions it then it's fair game. No official list required. It's not like there would be an agenda. It's just information, and that can never be misused because the prrss is pure and can never be questioned as long as it's factually correct. Things just happen at random.

How about a list of worst home security services and who uses them? Those who have none? All sorts of trivia can be had.

 

[WelshBloke]

Sure cases are reported. A paper can therefore take that information and "helpfully" sort it. Think how "beneficial" that would have been during the '50's in the US south. As far as gays, if someone mentions it then it's fair game. No official list required. It's not like there would be an agenda. It's just information, and that can never be misused because the prrss is pure and can never be questioned as long as it's factually correct. Things just happen at random.

How about a list of worst home security services and who uses them? Those who have none? All sorts of trivia can be had.

How about we limit what the press are allowed to report? Give everyone who is reported on the chance to censor the press? Indeed give people not being reported on the chance to censor the press just because they don't like the news that day.

 

[Pr0d1gy]

How about we limit what the press are allowed to report? Give everyone who is reported on the chance to censor the press? Indeed give people not being reported on the chance to censor the press just because they don't like the news that day.

How about the press just show some class and responsibility, like it used to do?

Oh and btw, it IS illegal to portray people in a negative light in the papers in this country if they are not doing anything wrong. Being a gun owner is not doing anything wrong, and printing their names and addys in a rag for every gun control loony to drool over is more than a little negative.

These people have jobs, families, and communities they have to deal with on a daily basis and it is nobody's business who owns guns. Would you like it if they printed up all the gay and HIV positive people after some gay guy sprayed his HIV infected blood on a crowd of people? Yeah, I didn't think so.

Look, if you support Nazism that is your personal choice, but marking people publicly to ostracize them is a disgusting practice that should have died when Hitler blew his brains out. Maybe you and all the other Nazi lovers should join him.

 

[WelshBloke]

How about the press just show some class and responsibility, like it used to do?

Oh and btw, it IS illegal to portray people in a negative light in the papers in this country if they are not doing anything wrong. Being a gun owner is not doing anything wrong, and printing their names and addys in a rag for every gun control loony to drool over is more than a little negative.

These people have jobs, families, and communities they have to deal with on a daily basis and it is nobody's business who owns guns. Would you like it if they printed up all the gay and HIV positive people after some gay guy sprayed his HIV infected blood on a crowd of people? Yeah, I didn't think so.

Look, if you support Nazism that is your personal choice, but marking people publicly to ostracize them is a disgusting practice that should have died when Hitler blew his brains out. Maybe you and all the other Nazi lovers should join him.

And... Godwins law.

BTW the first thing totalitarian states do is not take your guns its limit the press.

Do you think owning a gun is a negative thing? You seem to be likening it to having HIV now.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

How about the press just show some class and responsibility, like it used to do?

Oh and btw, it IS illegal to portray people in a negative light in the papers in this country if they are not doing anything wrong. Being a gun owner is not doing anything wrong, and printing their names and addys in a rag for every gun control loony to drool over is more than a little negative.

These people have jobs, families, and communities they have to deal with on a daily basis and it is nobody's business who owns guns. Would you like it if they printed up all the gay and HIV positive people after some gay guy sprayed his HIV infected blood on a crowd of people? Yeah, I didn't think so.

Look, if you support Nazism that is your personal choice, but marking people publicly to ostracize them is a disgusting practice that should have died when Hitler blew his brains out. Maybe you and all the other Nazi lovers should join him.

You need to read up on libel. It's not illegal first off. It's a civil matter. Secondly it is not libellous to present factual information.

It's disgusting what they did, but there is nothing illegal about it.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

How about we limit what the press are allowed to report? Give everyone who is reported on the chance to censor the press? Indeed give people not being reported on the chance to censor the press just because they don't like the news that day.

Oh no, I'm not suggesting any such thing. You approve of the press using its freedom to promote harm to minorities or homophobia and thats your business. It's just publishing legally obtained material.

 

[dmcowen674]

12-27-2012

http://news.yahoo.com/newspaper-published-gun-owner-addresses-gets-staffs-outed-144657471.html

Newspaper That Published Gun-Owner Addresses Gets Its Staff's Info Outed



A blogger named Christopher Fountain took it upon himself to dig up and organize the names, addresses, and phone numbers of the Journal-News staff, starting with editor Cyndee Royle. The post is called "Keep up the heat" and encourages readers to pester the paper and prevent them from continuing to report gun-owner addresses.

There are only eleven addresses, one of which is located in Manhattan.

"Be advised that the Journal News has been in downsizing mode for the past several years. I have to wonder if all these names are current employees but we will treat them as such until we learn otherwise."

In a morning interview with CNN, Fountain said he was angered by calls from victims of domestic abuse with gun permits who were worried their whereabouts had been inadvertently revealed. And, more philosophically:

"In the aftermath of Newtown, it was obviously one tragedy, but somehow they were conflating legal gun owners with some crazed tormented devil up in Newtown and putting the two together."

 

[Pr0d1gy]

You need to read up on libel. It's not illegal first off. It's a civil matter. Secondly it is not libellous to present factual information.

It's disgusting what they did, but there is nothing illegal about it.

It is absolutely the wrong thing to do and they will be sued, and they will lose. While it may not be a criminal act they are certainly liable for defaming these people, and while that may not be considered illegal by a stringent definition of the world it is most certainly against the laws this country has set forth.

And... Godwins law.

BTW the first thing totalitarian states do is not take your guns its limit the press.

Do you think owning a gun is a negative thing? You seem to be likening it to having HIV now.

Obviously you are just trolling. My bad, I thought you were serious.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

It is absolutely the wrong thing to do and they will be sued, and they will lose. While it may not be a criminal act they are certainly liable for defaming these people, and while that may not be considered illegal by a stringent definition of the world it is most certainly against the laws this country has set forth.

It's not considered illegal by any sense of the word, nor does it defame the parties listed. Its the First Amendment in action. You are just plain wrong.

If you want to talk about the moral right or wrong of it fine, but there is nothing that the paper did that would be construed as defamation. They published factual, publicly available data. They just compiled it to present.

 

[Bowfinger]

It is absolutely the wrong thing to do and they will be sued, and they will lose. While it may not be a criminal act they are certainly liable for defaming these people, and while that may not be considered illegal by a stringent definition of the world it is most certainly against the laws this country has set forth.

I think what that paper did was dumb, counterproductive, and a bit reckless ... but you have no clue what you're talking about. It is simply NOT defamatory, no matter how loudly you cry otherwise, and they will not be successfully sued on those grounds. Nor did the paper violate any laws "this country has set forth" by publishing public information. It's a silly claim, completely ignoring the First Amendment. A creative attorney may find some other angle for suing, but the odds are very much in the paper's favor. You need to understand that in America's legal system, "wrong", "illegal" and "actionable" can all be very different from each other.

 

[Bowfinger]

It's not considered illegal by any sense of the word, nor does it defame the parties listed. Its the First Amendment in action. You are just plain wrong.

If you want to talk about the moral right or wrong of it fine, but there is nothing that the paper did that would be construed as defamation. They published factual, publicly available data. They just compiled it to present.

^ This

 

[WelshBloke]

Oh no, I'm not suggesting any such thing. You approve of the press using its freedom to promote harm to minorities or homophobia and thats your business. It's just publishing legally obtained material.

Do I? Well I suppose I do in crappy analogy land but in the real world not so much.

 

[WelshBloke]

...Obviously you are just trolling. My bad, I thought you were serious.

Obviously it's me trolling not you having no idea what the hell your talking about, bringing up Hitler, calling people Nazis, making up crap analogies that puts gun owners in the place of HIV blood spraying psychos, making 'your mum' comments and generally having a bit of a tantrum because you can't get your point across.

Obviously must be me.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Do I? Well I suppose I do in crappy analogy land but in the real world not so much.

You created the crappy world. I merely followed your standards. Personally I don't buy such nonsense. Legally entitled? Certainly, but to claim justification for a purposeful act as merely informational? No. In this case it's listing of available guns for stealing, whether that was the intent or not. The paper is using its immunity without exercising responsibility.

 

[Pr0d1gy]

It's not considered illegal by any sense of the word, nor does it defame the parties listed. Its the First Amendment in action. You are just plain wrong.

If you want to talk about the moral right or wrong of it fine, but there is nothing that the paper did that would be construed as defamation. They published factual, publicly available data. They just compiled it to present.

And by doing so they defamed an entire community of people. What if they posted the name and addy of every black person in that area? Do you think that would hold up in court? Hell no, and neither will this. They are going to lose their asses in civil court because it is illegal to defame people because it is an actionable civil tort. Damages will be collected, and rightly so.

 

[WelshBloke]

You created the crappy world.

... Legally entitled? Certainly...

Which really is all that matters.

Certainly, but to claim justification for a purposeful act as merely informational? No. In this case it's listing of available guns for stealing, whether that was the intent or not. The paper is using its immunity without exercising responsibility.

Theres no way the paper was releasing this information to enable people to go out and steal guns. You cant for a second believe thats their intent. And you cant blame them for some criminals act anymore than you could blame a gun seller for a school shooting.

Why is this information publicly available? Presumably its so you can check to see if Joe next door has a permit for the gun you saw him with otherwise you'd have to phone the cops everytime you saw anyone with a gun to get them checked out.

 

[WelshBloke]

And by doing so they defamed an entire community of people. What if they posted the name and addy of every black person in that area? Do you think that would hold up in court? Hell no, and neither will this. They are going to lose their asses in civil court because it is illegal to defame people because it is an actionable civil tort. Damages will be collected, and rightly so.

You have no idea what to defame means do you?

 

[Pr0d1gy]

This message is hidden because WelshBloke is on your ignore list.

Did you say something? lol

Go back to your hole under the bridge.

 

[WelshBloke]

This message is hidden because WelshBloke is on your ignore list.

Did you say something? lol

Go back to your hole under the bridge.

Its Ok dude, sticking your fingers in your ears and going "LA LA LA LA I CANT HEAR YOU" is a time honoured way to win an argument.