Leftwing Newspaper Gone Too Far?

[Brian37]

If the information was already public, I'm amazed there wasn't a website dedicated to doing this already. In any case, this is information that shouldn't be public in the first place. There is no need for the general population to know who owns guns.

Um, lets not confuse issues here.

ALL public documents are just that "public" and as such the concept of transparency has been a valued concept since the founders. The idea is to have the ability to hold government accountable, thus we make transactions with government public.

NOW having said that, my problem isn't that government documents are public, THEY SHOULD BE, but the tactic of "outing" at that mass scale is what I object to.

I don't care if they were publishing abortion doctor's offices(which are a matter of public record) just like an apartment or house you live in is also on the public file.

I do care that the public trust was violated, that is the issue. What that Newspaper was NOT illegal, but it was immoral. That was an abuse of "the freedom of information act", which was not the intent that law was put in place for.

They damaged all citizens rights and also sent a message to potential whistle blowers that the media does not have to value privacy rights.

IT DEPENDS on why a record is being accessed. Not that it is public. This was an abuse of power, not a public records issue. Public records have to be kept in civil society and access to them should not be either always or never, but make the case on a case by case issue. This Newspaper decided for all of us what rights we should have, and NO ENTITY public or private should be allowed to do that.

[Mister Agenda]

Well it's done, and we have a social experiment in progress. I hope someone is gathering statistics on all this. I'm interested if crimes will follow a pattern (target homes with guns, 'cause guns are valuable; or target homes without gun, 'cause they don't got guns).

[Brian37]

Well it's done, and we have a social experiment in progress. I hope someone is gathering statistics on all this. I'm interested if crimes will follow a pattern (target homes with guns, 'cause guns are valuable; or target homes without gun, 'cause they don't got guns).

Abuse of power is the issue, and that is what I was addressing. I don't think that should be a "social experiment". This was a very bad and dangerous message that newspaper sent.

This can affect all of us if other media entities decide to invade our privacy on WHATEVER issue.

No entity public or private should ever have free reign to do whatever it wants simply because it has the power. This scares me much more because this is a tool society uses to hold government to account, and it turned around and turned on society.

It is a violation of public trust and abuse of power. It wouldn't matter to me if they were "outing" doctors or gays or Muslims.

[Tobie]

Most people here would agree that this was a bad move, left wingers included, but it was done by one person, not the entirety of the political left wing, so no, this isn't the left gone crazy.

Interesting little note I found on the Huffington Post about the journalist who wrote the article....the hypocrite himself owns a Smith & Wesson 686 .357 Magnum!...Gotta love those leftist double standards!

Again, this is one guy being hypocritical, so this isn't "leftist double standards".

[Brian37]

Most people here would agree that this was a bad move, left wingers included, but it was done by one person, not the entirety of the political left wing, so no, this isn't the left gone crazy.

Interesting little note I found on the Huffington Post about the journalist who wrote the article....the hypocrite himself owns a Smith & Wesson 686 .357 Magnum!...Gotta love those leftist double standards!

Again, this is one guy being hypocritical, so this isn't "leftist double standards".

I didn't say that. I am a "lefty" myself. I am saying this kind of tactic is dangerous, NO MATTER WHO DOES IT IN THE MEDIA. This was one paper, agreed.

[Great Ape]

I am far from being liberal and I do think this guy went too far.

Is nothing private anymore? Whats next?

[Tiberius]

Um, lets not confuse issues here.

I don't believe I was.

ALL public documents are just that "public" and as such the concept of transparency has been a valued concept since the founders. The idea is to have the ability to hold government accountable, thus we make transactions with government public.

I know that public documents are public...it's kinda in the title. The concept of transparency is for government actions...not that of citizens. The privacy of citizens is also a valued concept. The government should be transparent on policy and its business transactions...but not when it grants a citizen some license. In my country, we have a national health service. I would be appalled if someone could simply do an information request for everyone with a specific prescription. Want to find out how many people are on anti-depressants? Sure, here are the details!

There are some things which should remain private, and anything that is invasive to a person's private life should be.

NOW having said that, my problem isn't that government documents are public, THEY SHOULD BE, but the tactic of "outing" at that mass scale is what I object to.

Then you have a contradiction on your hands. You cannot support these documents being public, but then object to when they are published publicly. Why? Because as I said before, anyone could have done this. There is no real difference between one newspaper filing one information request and then passing the information onto its readers, and all the readers individually filing information requests for the same information.

If information is already public, it is already outed on a mass scale.

I don't care if they were publishing abortion doctor's offices(which are a matter of public record) just like an apartment or house you live in is also on the public file.

Abortion offices are providing a public service...they have to be public. I'm not so sure about living addresses; I don't think you should just be able to publish where someone is living.

I do care that the public trust was violated, that is the issue. What that Newspaper was NOT illegal, but it was immoral. That was an abuse of "the freedom of information act", which was not the intent that law was put in place for.

I never said it was illegal.

They damaged all citizens rights and also sent a message to potential whistle blowers that the media does not have to value privacy rights.

When has the media ever valued privacy rights?

IT DEPENDS on why a record is being accessed. Not that it is public. This was an abuse of power, not a public records issue. Public records have to be kept in civil society and access to them should not be either always or never, but make the case on a case by case issue. This Newspaper decided for all of us what rights we should have, and NO ENTITY public or private should be allowed to do that.

Again, there are some records which should be public, and others which shouldn't. Doctors records should not be public, neither should the list of licenses for anything. A person should not have to sacrifice their privacy in order to buy something.

[Creed of Heresy]

I'm as far to the left as you can get in the US and I think that this person took it way the fuck too far. There is no justification for this mass-publishing of private information of any sort whatsoever.

[Cinjin]

The newspaper wins no matter what. It sells, and anything that gains them national attention is really good for business.
It was both socially irresponsible and financially brilliant. It was a typical American move: money trumps common sense in corporate America.


However, this has NOTHING to do with the "Left" as your OP stated. This is simply a business capitalizing off of good old fashioned fear.

[Brian37]

The privacy of citizens is also a valued concept.

No disagreement there. I really don't think we are on different pages. I said it was an abuse of power on that Newpaper's part. I did not in any of my posts say what this paper did was right, I have flatly condemned it's actions.