Death Toll Revised Down to 24 After Monstrous Oklahoma Tornado…100+ Injured…Children Among the Dead…Stunning Pictures…Woman Finds Dog During Interview!

Complete Oklahoma Tornado Coverage: Current Death Toll, Incredible pictures, Behind the scenes with Beck, & amazing story of a woman and her dog

Media

NY Paper Broke No Laws With Gun Owner Map — But Is It Ever Ethical to Publish Personal Info to Push an Agenda?

Dec. 27, 2012 6:27pm Jason Howerton

New York’s “Journal News” certainly infuriated many pro-gun advocates after publishing the names and addresses of pistol permit holders in two New York Counties, however, the paper doesn’t appear to have broken any privacy laws.

In retaliation, blogger Robert Cox with “Talk of the Sound” published his own post titled, “Map: Where are the Journal News employees in your neighborhood?” The interactive map featured the names, addresses, social media profiles and phone numbers of employees of the weekly Journal News publication.

The Journal News Broke No Privacy Laws With Gun Owner Map, But Story Raises Ethical Questions

Screenshot of Journal News employee address map. (Image: Robert Cox/ Talk of the Sound)

But is it ever ethical to publish innocent Americans’ personal information to push an agenda? That is the debate occurring across the country following the Journal News’ controversial decision.

CynDee Royle, Journal News editor, recently defended the paper’s actions saying: “We knew publication of the database would be controversial, but we felt sharing as much information as we could about gun ownership in our area was important in the aftermath of the Newtown shootings.”

Bob Freeman, executive director of the New York State Committee on Open Government, told TheBlaze on Thursday that state law regarding the matter “is crystal clear.”

“The name and address of any person to whom an application to any license has been granted shall be public record,” Freeman said, reading from the related law. “And they can do with the information as they see fit.”

He went on to say that the decision to publish the personal information of pistol permit holders — which is public information in New York — came down to editorial judgment as there was no law violation.

“The First Amendment is at play here,” Freeman explained, adding that any journalist could find private information in a tipped over trash can, such as welfare recipient information, and publish it without fear of prosecution.

But as Freeman pointed out, other personal information is protected by privacy law in the Empire State. For example, the Journal News would have been unable to retrieve individuals’ tax records or public assistance records.

It ultimately comes down to ethics and whether it is ever necessary to publish personal information, especially when it comes to such a contentious topic like gun ownership.

In an op-ed published on Thursday, Poynter’s Al Tompkins calls the Journal News’ journalistic and ethical standards into question [emphasis added]:

If publishing the data because it is public and the public seems to be interested in the topic right now is reason enough, then there are endless databases to exploit.

If your county required dog and cat licenses would you publish that interactive map? I suspect the licenses would be public. I sure would like to know if there were three dogs living behind me before I moved in.

I have seen news organizations publish the salaries of local and state government employees for no reason other than that they can. Why? Did we think they all worked for free? If somebody is playing the system, expose them. But use the surgeon’s tools, not a chainsaw approach.

I like it when journalists take heat for an explosive, necessary, courageous investigation that exposes important wrongdoing. There is journalistic purpose and careful decision-making supporting those stories. But The News Journal is taking heat for starting a gunfight just because it could.

David Trigilanos, a Putnam County resident, during an appearance on Fox News, said that by publishing the names of gun owners, the paper essentially put them “on the level of a sex offender.”

“Those people have demonstrated that they are a threat to their community, I haven’t done anything to demonstrate that I’m a threat to my community,” Triglianos said.

“I don’t know how it makes it safer to know that your neighbor happens to own a handgun or is licensed to own a handgun,” he added. “If Nancy Lanza’s neighbors had known she owned guns, what difference would that have made?”

Blogger Christopher Fountain, who posted the names and addresses of nearly every Journal News employee, told CNN that he fought back because he was offended by the paper’s “conflating legal gun owners with some crazed tormented devil up in Newtown.”

CNN’s Roland Martin accused Fountain of being hypocritical by publishing employees’ personal information while criticizing the paper for doing the same thing.

“Well, it’s a logical fallacy, I agree, to say ‘you did it too’,” Fountain said. “On the other hand, frankly I am not a big fan of the media and I felt they were using this to harass gun owners…so I harassed them back.”

(shutterstock.com)

The Journal News employees whose information is now public have remained largely silent. Calls made by TheBlaze to several employees were not immediately returned. Further, many of their social media profiles are void of recent posts while others have been deleted.

Several of the employees listed phone numbers are no longer in service and others go straight to voice mail with a “inbox is full” message.

It is unclear whether these developments are related to the recent backlash over the Journal News story.

In some other states, publishing gun owner information is more than just an ethical question. In Texas, though there are no mandatory handgun permits, the public information of concealed carry permit holders is protected under confidentiality law.

“Records involving an applicant for a license to carry a concealed handgun, except as provided by law” is confidential information, according to the Texas Department of Public Safety.

Was it ethical for the Journal News to publish the names and addresses of handgun permit holders? What about the bloggers who retaliated by publishing the employees’ personal information? Let us know what you think in the comment section below.

TheBlaze editors discussed the topic during Thursday’s Blazecast. Watch the video below:

In CONTROL, Glenn Beck presents a passionate, fact-based case for guns that reveals why gun control isn’t really about controlling guns at all; it’s about controlling us. Find out more HERE.

Back to The Blaze »

Comments (73)

TexasKnight
Posted on December 27, 2012 at 9:54pm
I wonder if any names appear on both lists?
Do you think they will soon? After seeing their names appear, are they now going to protect themselves?
If not, I think all responsible gun owners should show up on the sidewalk in front of their house.
Pull out lawn chairs, crank the boom box, and as concerned citizens protect these editors from any possible threats from non responsible gun owners.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- LibertyOrDeath12
  Posted on December 27, 2012 at 10:46pm
  Now the Criminals are going to load up the map and see which ones do not own a gun. Wow!! Are people this stupid?
  
  Report this comment
- Independent4233
  Posted on December 28, 2012 at 8:18am
  “I don’t know how it makes it safer to know that your neighbor happens to own a handgun or is licensed to own a handgun.”
  
  It dosn’t make anyone safer, of course.
  
  This geek publisher of that liberal rag actually believed that she was going to shame people into getting rid of their guns….because guns scare her….too dumb to understand that she could well be putting the bad guys on notice that they are to leave these people and their homes alone.
  
  I’ve got a CCW permit. I’m a pretty big, strong guy, with a lot of military training, but I’m no match for a weapon if I’m unarmed.
  
  Putting dregs on notice that I am carrying by identifying me in a newspaper could well make it unnecessary for me to use my weapon against those who know it.
  
  It’s not the act of publishing names that I mostly disagree with. It’s the thought behind it. This worthless geek radical thought she was doing harm to the people she identified.
  
  I’d like to see her harassed and pursued until she has to go into hiding, along with her lackies who eagerly follow her perverted lead.
  
  Report this comment
- Crashlander
  Posted on December 28, 2012 at 11:01am
  A more interesting story would be to get the raw data the newspaper used and then see who’s name and address they Did Not publish.
  If it can be shown that they did not publish this information when it concerned family, friends, or political allies then that would show malicious intent in the publication of the other names, due to their attempt to shelter these individuals from the harm that they anticipated this would cause.
  
  That is a story I would like to read about.
  
  Report this comment
- bonesiii
  Posted on December 28, 2012 at 5:08pm
  I would love to see a 50-state roundup of who protects privacy rights and who violates them.
  
  Report this comment
dbeesh
Posted on December 27, 2012 at 9:50pm
How about publishing the names of all the women who had abortions in that area. How about a list of latent homosexuals? If gun owners cannot have any privacy then they shouldn’t either.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
fastboy
Posted on December 27, 2012 at 9:46pm
Great, a b+e map for all the criminals who want to steal handguns.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
crawdad
Posted on December 27, 2012 at 9:44pm
When thugs are breaking in their back door, now the libs know where to run for protection

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
dosdelgados
Posted on December 27, 2012 at 9:28pm
What if someone has a gun because they are a domestic violence victim?

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
mastice
Posted on December 27, 2012 at 8:14pm
See? I commented on the other story that licensed gun records are not “private records” and no law was broken. (I pointed out that in my state, a conceal carry state, any citizen can march into their local sheriffs offices and ask for “the list” of registered gun owners in the county)

Paper publishing the information… distasteful? Yes. Illegal? No.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
charles116
Posted on December 27, 2012 at 7:57pm
Public records are public records.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- NotGivingUpWithoutaFight
  Posted on December 27, 2012 at 10:29pm
  Glad you think so. So I guess you don’t mind posting your personal information on this comment section, since, if you weren’t hiding behind a screen name, we’d be able to look all of it up anyway. Lots of things are public record, but why make it easier for criminals to know about things we don’t want getting into their hands? Isn’t this why we’ve been mourning the last couple of weeks? You can’t assume everyone with a gun condones or would do what that kid did. Most people are just regular citizens who don’t feel they should have to crawl into a closet in their own house with a phone, call 911 and wait agonizing minutes for police to show up and possibly investigate their murder.
  
  Report this comment
AllLost
Posted on December 27, 2012 at 7:46pm
Pretty much proves that there is little reporting going on and much politicizing.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
PissOnLiberals
Posted on December 27, 2012 at 7:44pm
Well they probably pissed off all the non-permit holders becase all the criminals now know who does’nt have a gun!

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- OVMAMA
  Posted on December 27, 2012 at 9:16pm
  Yeah, that’s what my thinking was….
  
  Report this comment
media-bias-steals-elections
Posted on December 27, 2012 at 7:36pm
The fact that the newspaper had this article ready to go demonstrates that when they created this law without privacy protections, they had no intention of allowing citizens to keep those concealed carry permits by creating follow up stories (death threats, etc.)? If it is important to conceal the weapons, then common sense should tell you that concealing their identities is important in a world where “twitter” allows people to communicate in real time with no real monitoring?

I found out the Navy Seals who were downed in a Chinook, could have been saved if fellow air craft C130 had been able to assist, but were told to “stand down” because “friendlies” were in the area (the top of a tower used to fire RPG)??

That’s an example where “Twitter” (communications) is useless for the good guys, but really convenient for the bad guys? When bad guys are confronted, they don’t surrender for punishment, do they? They commit suicide, so why do politicians think “gun free zones” which amount to “rules of engagement” have any objective other then to make good guys (and innocents) bleed?

What prevents the bad guys from using twitter or anything to else to stalk the concealed license holders, and create more news stories, thereby using “President Obama’s Oldest Trick in the Book” where politicians create chaos, then swoop in to “save the day” when they did not nothing to save the day be begin with, and may have inspired problems?

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
flyingfox88
Posted on December 27, 2012 at 7:21pm
Ethics? What ethics? Is anyone under the impression that the mainstream media has any ethics? No one is doubting this newspaper’s right to publish information. But rights imply correlative RESPONSIBILITIES! I guess in today’s world, agendas are paramount and damn the responsibility.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Benjamin Linus
Posted on December 27, 2012 at 7:17pm
If women who have abortions were forced to register would “Journal News” post their names and addresses? Would it be legal for them to do it? Would they claim moral superiority in doing so?

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- repairsea
  Posted on December 27, 2012 at 7:26pm
  I was thinking the same thing. What would happen if they post teenage girls who had abortions? Doesn’t this become public record with Obamacare?
  
  Report this comment
- charles116
  Posted on December 27, 2012 at 7:58pm
  That makes so much sense.
  It’s a legal medical procedure and doctor/patient confidentiality enter the picture,
  Really.
  
  Report this comment
- Pickles327
  Posted on December 28, 2012 at 4:54pm
  @Charles116 The differences is I <<<<< the tax payer has to pay for it and it should be made public !!! YOU are using public funding ie my MONEY that is the difference . If you are paying out of your own pocket that is your business see it for what it is !!!!
  
  Report this comment
CathyvanDyke
Posted on December 27, 2012 at 7:16pm
Conservatives could legally use the public record to their advantage. In other words an agenda to expose liberal hypocricy could be furthered.

It would be interesting if PROMINENT liberal hypocrites who possess registered weapon were identified … PROMINENT liberal hypocrites who along with their families are protected by armed security … PROMINENT liberal hypocrites who advocate gun control for law abiding citizens.
.
I am anticipating a posted interactive map compiled by conservative bloggers exposing the double standard of many liberal politicians regarding the gun control issue … exposing the double standard of many liberals who have connections to both the movie industry and mainstream media.

Taking the conservative high road is not working. If American is to be saved … the playing field on the right and left of the political spectrum must be even.

Where’s Glenn?

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- ginger100
  Posted on December 27, 2012 at 9:22pm
  Conservatives need to fight like liberals using the same tactics on all levels
  
  Report this comment
DougHuffman
Posted on December 27, 2012 at 7:06pm
Ethical? Absolutely. Viz. court records and offender registries.

Again, there is a public activism opportunity to publish a volunteered data base of gun carriers, open/concealed, accessible to the public. There is strength in numbers.

Good people ought to be armed as they will, with wits and Guns and the Truth. God Bless Bitter Clingers, damn know-nothings, progressives.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
randy
Posted on December 27, 2012 at 7:04pm
Saw this on another site…….
BILL NUMBER:S2488B
TITLE OF BILL:
An act to amend the penal law, in relation to pistol permit privacy

PURPOSE:
To require that when a person, OTHER THAN law enforcement, requests a
search of the pistol or revolver automated listing under the Freedom
of Information Law (FOIL) THAT IT IS LIMITED TO A SEARCH BY SPECIFIC NAME………

SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS:
Section 1 – Subdivision 5 of Section 400.00 of the Penal Law, as
amended by Chapter 332 of the laws of 1994, is amended to make the
names of any pistol or revolver permit holders confidential except if
a request is made under the Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) for a
specific individual by name. Any requests for the entire list
of licensees or for all the licensees in a geographic area shall be
denied except if requested by law enforcement (to include any
district attorney office in New York State).

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- donkeykong
  Posted on December 27, 2012 at 7:26pm
  Looks to me like this was made LAW in June of 2012,
  per this link…..
  
  http://open.nysenate.gov/legislation/bill/S2488B-2011
  
  If so, are they going to be arresting anyone at the paper?
  
  Doubt it.
  
  Report this comment
- Chet Hempstead
  Posted on December 27, 2012 at 11:58pm
  donkeykong
  It’s not law, it has never been passed by the Assembly.
  
  Report this comment
- Winedude
  Posted on December 28, 2012 at 1:34am
  Hey Donkey: I guess that you don’t know how to read. If you look, you’ll note that in 2011 the bill died in the Assembly (1-4-2012). Thus far it has passed the Senate again and passed along to the Assembly. At least according to the link you provided, the bill has not yet been taken up. So I’d say it’s not yet law. What are you, educated in the South?
  
  Report this comment
- BenInNY
  Posted on December 28, 2012 at 8:19am
  Ah hell. Whether or not he’s an ass (just playing your game, winedude) he’s right – when I first posted the link to A 9388 I thought that “referred to codes” meant it was done with and passed, but that was the second iteration which then moved back to the senate where they have S02488B (same text). The senate passed it and moved it back to the assembly, where it’s been sitting since June this year: http://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?default_fld=&bn=s+2488-b&term=2011&Summary=Y&Actions=Y&Votes=Y&Text=Y
  
  Report this comment
RightUnite
Posted on December 27, 2012 at 7:02pm
Whats good for the goose, is good for the gander… Maybe they’ll think twice before posting information they shouldn’t.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- TexasKnight
  Posted on December 27, 2012 at 9:50pm
  My thoughts exactly.
  
  Report this comment
chips1
Posted on December 27, 2012 at 6:54pm
The best thing about this story is that the left actually thinks we will sit back and do nothing. They got b6t9h slapped and now they suddenly woke up. This is only the beginning. Threaten us again and we won’t roll over. Those days are over.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- lillymckim
  Posted on December 27, 2012 at 7:03pm
  Ok… since when have newspapers been “ethical” do you mean like our state run media “ethical”?
  Literally laughing out loud.
  
  Report this comment
- bava
  Posted on December 27, 2012 at 7:57pm
  No. Your days are over. Outside of this site NO ONE CARES. You are small. How small? Vapor is bigger than you. That’s gotta suck.
  
  Report this comment
woodyl1011fl
Posted on December 27, 2012 at 6:48pm
The photographs of all these media people as well as their personal data should be published on line with headline for the group of them should read “Folks These people are enemies of your liberties, freedoms and the Constitutiom. As well as the safety of your selves, your children and your homes.”
Liberalism and liberal controlled culture once again proves how wicked and sick it is.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Cemoto78
  Posted on December 27, 2012 at 7:04pm
  Typical CNN, right away they want to demonize him and take the light off of the journalists who brought this on themselves. What needs to be drilled into these liberals heads is; WE ARE NO LONGER SITTING BACK AND TAKING IT. IT’S TIME TO FIGHT FIRE WITH FIRE AND PUT THEM IN THE HOT SEAT. USE THE SAME RULES OF ENGAGEMENT AT THEM. WE WILL NOT LET UP, PUSH, PUSH, AND PUSH SOME MORE.
  
  Report this comment
- ginger100
  Posted on December 27, 2012 at 9:23pm
  @cemoto78 I agree with you
  
  Report this comment
markdido
Posted on December 27, 2012 at 6:40pm
Concealed Weapon permits information is also not public record in Florida. We had a liberal news rag down here do the same thing recently. Legislation preventing that from happening again was swift.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
rockymtngal
Posted on December 27, 2012 at 6:40pm
Isn’t rather odd that you can track down someone who owns a gun legally, but you can’t find illegals?

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
CWPrequired
Posted on December 27, 2012 at 6:39pm
Thanks Christopher for fighting back. It’s time to start using their own tactics to teach them a lesson.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Zipit
Posted on December 27, 2012 at 6:38pm
Pit Americans against Americans! The objective is coming to fruition!

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- chips1
  Posted on December 27, 2012 at 7:05pm
  Actually, too many non-Americans are the problem. The Constitution defines Americans, not the freaky left.
  
  Report this comment
- mrunner
  Posted on December 27, 2012 at 7:10pm
  Pit Americans against ********. Struggle with calling them Americans- they don’t understand the whole “freedom” and “God Given Rights” thing- without that understanding they are AINO.
  
  Report this comment
vtxphantom
Posted on December 27, 2012 at 6:38pm
Now, publish a list of all those that do not own guns. I would bet robberies would go up.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- athiest-infedel
  Posted on December 27, 2012 at 6:53pm
  They already know who is not on the list.
  
  Report this comment
- Chet Hempstead
  Posted on December 28, 2012 at 12:03am
  That would be irresponsible. Just because somebody is not on the list of permit holders doesn’t necessarily prove that they don’t own a gun. If you published an inaccurate list of people you claimed had no guns, you could end up getting sued by a criminal who got shot with an illegal gun because he acted on your erroneous information.
  
  Report this comment
progressiveslayer
Posted on December 27, 2012 at 6:34pm
The ‘editor’ and ‘reporters’ of that rag have skeletons in their closets,maybe they should be brought out to the light of day?

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- RJJinGadsden
  Posted on December 27, 2012 at 6:41pm
  Wonder how many might be sexual predators?
  
  Report this comment
- progressiveslayer
  Posted on December 27, 2012 at 6:54pm
  I don’t know let’s get Chris Hansen on this….wait a second he’s an adulterer so he’s out. There’s dirt on em RJ that’s for sure.
  
  Report this comment
SocialistSlayer
Posted on December 27, 2012 at 6:34pm
It’s called an Eye for an Eye – Justice at it’s purest form. Journalist are nothing but cowards hiding behind a title! They don’t care about people nor Constitutions – they only push their own misguided agendas! May they all go to Hell !

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- SovereignSoul
  Posted on December 27, 2012 at 6:47pm
  I’m sure the journalist that brought you this information would agree!
  
  Report this comment

It appears that you have Javascript Disabled. Please enable Javascript in your browser preferences for a better user experience on TheBlaze. You can not comment without Javascript enabled.