why does this outrage conservatives?

Public information, acquired by F.O.I. request?... Yeah, must be illegal...to some people...

Instead of dancing an Irish jig around the issue raised Dog, why not simply disucss it? I'm sure that you can distinguish between law abiding and law breaking and how that might impact one's right to privacy.

You didn't like my analogy at all, did you. You would be up in arms if a group of those opposed to homosexual marriage obtained a list of homosexuals who received marriage licenses through the public records and then published that list. You would say that it endangered their safety and violated their privacy. If someone attempted to compare that act to publishing a list of convicted sex offenders, you'd be simply apoplectic with charges of homophobia spewing forth from your keyboard.

Tell me I'm wrong Dog. Rather than attempt to deflect, tell me that you aren't that hypocritical and that I've totally misjudged your character.

You see Dog, people of character would be willing to admit that it was wrong in either instance, not just the one where they had a personal ax that they wished to grind. That is, of course, why neither you nor SFB were willing to address the issue that was raised and prefer instead to attempt to deflect the discussion away from reasoned discourse.

What is legal and what is appropriate are not necessarily the same.

Oh, no links, this is IMO.

PrintSmith wrote: Instead of dancing an Irish jig around the issue raised Dog, why not simply disucss it? I'm sure that you can distinguish between law abiding and law breaking and how that might impact one's right to privacy.

You didn't like my analogy at all, did you. You would be up in arms if a group of those opposed to homosexual marriage obtained a list of homosexuals who received marriage licenses through the public records and then published that list. You would say that it endangered their safety and violated their privacy. If someone attempted to compare that act to publishing a list of convicted sex offenders, you'd be simply apoplectic with charges of homophobia spewing forth from your keyboard.

Tell me I'm wrong Dog. Rather than attempt to deflect, tell me that you aren't that hypocritical and that I've totally misjudged your character.

You see Dog, people of character would be willing to admit that it was wrong in either instance, not just the one where they had a personal ax that they wished to grind. That is, of course, why neither you nor SFB were willing to address the issue that was raised and prefer instead to attempt to deflect the discussion away from reasoned discourse.

Why would it be illegal for a newspaper to exercise their 1st Amendment rights to publish public information about anyone? What grounds for a lawsuit as suggested by the previous posters exist? My post pointed out that just as public information about sex offenders posted so can public information about gun permit holders. Since you somehow are trying to equate sex offenders with homosexual marriages, then that tells much about you. I was not aware that marriage certificates designate "homosexual marriages", or that personal information on such "homosexual" marriage certificates is publicly available.

Perhaps PS you could leave your agenda against "homosexual" marriages aside and discuss the real issue here. Is it permissible to limit the 1st Amendment right of the press to publish publicly available information? In case you may have not gotten around to actually reading the 1st Amendment, I have set it out here for your.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

so where does it support the idea that a newspaper may be liable for publishing true publicly available facts? Hmm?

As to the Ohio case, there was never any litigation. Instead a Ohio based gun owners group posted personal information about the editor of the newspaper, his family, and in particular, his 12 year daughter, describing her, describing where she went to school, the route that she usually took to get to school, where pictures of her might be obtained, and suggestions of the harm that might occur to her. The editor felt threatened and dropped the publishing of the names of the permit owner rather than have his family continued to be threatened. Yep, those gun owners are a real class act.

There is a lot of info in the public records that doesn't need to be published. How about publishing every drunk driving arrest before the case actually goes to court?

Are you saying that it is a crime for a newspaper to publish drunk driving arrests? Because I have seen them often reported.

I am not saying the publishing of public records is a crime but I think it should only be done judiciously. For example convicted instead of just charged.

jf1acai wrote: What is legal and what is appropriate are not necessarily the same.

The same could be said of assault weapons and high-capacity magazines....

FredHayek wrote: I am not saying the publishing of public records is a crime but I think it should only be done judiciously. For example convicted instead of just charged.

Who decides what should be published? The constitutional rights of freedom of the press was one of the most essential according to the Founding Fathers. So it is left to the marketplace. If the market does not want that information published, then they can refuse to purchase the newspaper, and advertisers can choose not to advertise in it. But there certainly is no crime in publishing publicly available facts, particularly when there is no malice intended. The best argument that could be made is that publishing such information is an invasion of privacy. But that fails here since the permits are considered public information.

If the people of NY wanted that information maintained as private information, then they should have required that in their laws.

So the Dog thinks state laws should be able to overrule the 1st Amendment? Interesting. Continuing this course if you think it is fair for you to know which neighbors have guns so you can determine which homes are safe for your kids to visit shouldn't it also be public information which of your neighbors are convicted sexual predators and which have easily transmitted diseases? We could even make them wear a scarlet letter A for AIDS.