"The Journal News of suburban Westchester, New York caused outrage by publishing an interactive map showing the names and addresses of New York's legal firearm owners.
In response, a blogger decided to create a map showing the names and addresses of employees of the newspaper.
The blog, "Talk of the Sound," a New Rochelle, New York-centric website, decided that turnabout was fair play by posting its headlined, "Map: Where are the Journal News employees in your neighborhood?." The map replicates the gun owners map published by the Journal News, replacing gun owners with newspaper employees.
There was one reason and one reason only for the newspaper to publish the names and addresses of New York's gun owners: intimidation. The paper meant to scare these law abiding citizens. It was nothing but a bullying tactic.
Worse, by taking this action, the Journal News intended to put New York's law abiding firearm owners on the same level as the murderer at Sandy Hook Elementary."
Art of CIP
Posts: 21,234
Long Beach, California, US
What Fun Productions wrote: "The Journal News of suburban Westchester, New York caused outrage by publishing an interactive map showing the names and addresses of New York's legal firearm owners.
In response, a blogger decided to create a map showing the names and addresses of employees of the newspaper.
The blog, "Talk of the Sound," a New Rochelle, New York-centric website, decided that turnabout was fair play by posting its headlined, "Map: Where are the Journal News employees in your neighborhood?." The map replicates the gun owners map published by the Journal News, replacing gun owners with newspaper employees.
There was one reason and one reason only for the newspaper to publish the names and addresses of New York's gun owners: intimidation. The paper meant to scare these law abiding citizens. It was nothing but a bullying tactic.
Worse, by taking this action, the Journal News intended to put New York's law abiding firearm owners on the same level as the murderer at Sandy Hook Elementary."
Art of CIP
Posts: 21,234
Long Beach, California, US
What Fun Productions wrote:
The newspaper had no problem posting the names and addresses of legal gun owners.
They shouldn't have a problem with others revealing their names, right?
You just posted the name, address, and a plethora of personal information about a parent, her family, her friends, and her coworkers here... So you shouldn't have a problem with others doing the same to you right?
You just posted the name, address, and a plethora of personal information about a parent, her family, her friends, and her coworkers here... So you shouldn't have a problem with others doing the same to you right?
Tooo Funnnyy!!!
Well, my family is full of attorneys.. so I guess I have some recourse.
SensualThemes
Posts: 3,024
Swoyersville, Pennsylvania, US
As my anti gun nut sister said, it's public information. Of course, posting HER public info online wasn't as acceptable...for instance, publishing the names of her 'married' gay friends who worked for conservative employers or in oppressive communities.
It's fine when it serves your gials Iguess...but in typical "liberal, tolerant, open" fashion, not if it doesn't
Art of CIP
Posts: 21,234
Long Beach, California, US
What Fun Productions wrote:
Well, my family is full of attorneys.. so I guess I have some recourse.
But I remind you, this thread is not about me.
You cannot start a thread, insert your opinion, and then say it is not about you. Of course it is about you. And your opinions on the matter will be discussed here as well.
Now, the wording of your post that you think is funny is actually quite predatory.
From the blog that What Fun Feels is fair and funny wrote: Miss X’s married name is X. She lives in X and here is her Facebook page complete with pictures of her and her kids. Hello Sanctimony.
*Names and locations have been committed...
Apparently your opinion is that it is just fine for people to post public info online and also bring pictures of their children as well... Apparently you approve of this... Afterall, these are your own words:
What Fun wrote: Opinion: Turnabout is fair play. Now all those legal gun owners know the names and addresses of the newspaper employees.
Art of CIP wrote: You cannot start a thread, insert your opinion, and then say it is not about you. Of course it is about you. And your opinions on the matter will be discussed here as well.
With this kind of logic...anyone who starts a thread- it's about them- riiiiight.
Like I said- SB: endless entertainment.
OP: I saw the article on Yahoo first a few days ago. Neither of these actions are right...but the ones who own guns...the criminals know where not to go so easily.
Art of CIP wrote: You cannot start a thread, insert your opinion, and then say it is not about you. Of course it is about you. And your opinions on the matter will be discussed here as well.
Now, the wording of your post that you think is funny is actually quite predatory.
Saving this so I can ask each and every time you start a thread what it has to personally do with and is about you.
SAND DIAL
Posts: 5,965
Santa Monica, California, US
j3_photo wrote:
With this kind of logic...anyone who starts a thread- it's about them- riiiiight.
Like I said- SB: endless entertainment.
OP: I saw the article on Yahoo first a few days ago. Neither of these actions are right...but the ones who own guns...the criminals know where not to go so easily.
I dont know how easy / hard it is to get a list of convicted felons, they have yet
to publish that.
The writers home, phone # etc are now online, but 'advertised' more.
Art of CIP wrote: Apparently your opinion is that it is just fine for people to post public info online and also bring pictures of their children as well... Apparently you approve of this... Afterall, these are your own words:
Give it a rest CIP...
Here are some more sources to the story in the OP:
What Fun Productions wrote: Roseanne Barr Joins Twitter Vigilante Crew
The comedian Roseanne Barr last night tweeted the home address of George Zimmerman’s parents to her 110,000-plus Twitter followers, only to delete the posting after “not fully understanding that it was private not public.”
It seems that we are getting mixed messages about putting people's personal information online... In this thread the OP praises bloggers for putting someone's personal information along with their children's, families', and friends' - yet the OP is very sympathetic to family of George Zimmerman in what appeared to be a similar situation at the time...
It seems that we are getting mixed messages about putting people's personal information online... In this thread the OP praises bloggers for putting someone's personal information along with their children's, families', and friends' - yet the OP is very sympathetic to family of George Zimmerman in what appeared to be a similar situation at the time...
Art of CIP wrote: Never said it was your op... Did I say it was your OP? Please do point out where I said it was your OP... Do it right now - I'd love to see it...
Art of CIP
Posts: 21,234
Long Beach, California, US
What Fun Productions wrote:
Please give it a rest and quit threadjacking.
This is not a threadjack - this bringing into question the validity of your OP here. And based on your own words and your history here in Soapbox - your OP is highly suspect.
This is not a threadjack - this bringing into question the validity of your OP here. And based on your own words and your history here in Soapbox - your OP is highly suspect.
Damon Banner
Posts: 83,655
Hayward, California, US
SAND DIAL wrote:
Why? is it private info? stolen?
I'm curious how you never understand anything.
Let me ask you, will you post your real name, phone number and address in this thread? I mean, you seem to be trying to justify what happened in the OP's article. You seem to think it's okay. So post your information here for us. Mount up.
Let me ask you, will you post your real name, phone number and address in this thread? I mean, you seem to be trying to justify what happened in the OP's article. You seem to think it's okay. So post your information here for us. Mount up.
PUBLIC information...BIG difference (not that it's right to do what either side did).
SAND DIAL
Posts: 5,965
Santa Monica, California, US
Damon Banner wrote:
I'm curious how you never understand anything.
Let me ask you, will you post your real name, phone number and address in this thread? I mean, you seem to be trying to justify what happened in the OP's article. You seem to think it's okay. So post your information here for us. Mount up.
OK, I wont ask you questions, at least for awhile.
I was doing a websearch, one gets that info via 'freedom of info' request or act.
Michael Bots
Posts: 4,104
Kingston, Ontario, Canada
More than criminals know where to go.
One of the problems with the gun permit info being public is that some of those people are in hiding with court protection orders in hand, psycho stalker former partners and have the weapon with a real need for personal protection.
Nothing quite like the joy of being in hiding from your ex and an irresponsible paper publishes your address.
| 
| 
| edu