Winter Borne
Member
This Just in via e-mail, CNN now airing it's broadcast on Friday 3/30
I have forwarded some more emails on permit holders whose lives have been harmed by the Roanoke Times publishing of the CHP database on their web site to CNN reporter Kyung Lah.
Kyung just told me that she wants to get at least one of those stories into her piece, so she is going to move the story out until this Friday at 8 PM. (I'm going to tape tonight at 8 PM must in case the story doesn't get delayed for some reason).
--
The Roanoke Times has issued an explanation about their publishing
the CHP holder database. But they don't explain equating concealed
handgun permit holders with sex offenders, for example.
While I'm glad the Roanoke Times has said they don't want to repeat
their mistakes, if the Roanoke Times thinks that their explanation,
which still justifies much of what they did, is an apology, they are
greatly mistaken.
Until they issue an apology for slurring the reputations for 140,000
gun owners by equating permit holders with sex offenders and until
the paper holds someone at the RT accountable for the damage they
have done to many permit holders' lives, the RT has not settled the
issue.
BTW, to show what we are dealing with here, Christian Trejbal now has
an article that says when driving he won't yield to anyone who has a
political bumper sticker he disagrees with.
http://www.roanoke.com/editorials/trejbal/wb/wb/xp-110226
So everyone's safety comes second to Trejbal's politics? Well, at
least he is consistent in his view that the world revolves around him.
We still need another one hundred people to sign up for a VCDL
license plate (you do so on the VCDL web site), before we can order
them.
Don't you know that Trejbal would love to see one of those license
plates in front of him as he is driving down the road! ;-)
Here is the Roanoke Times' explanation of their actions on publishing
the CHP holder database:
http://www.roanoke.com/editorials/wb/110214
Lessons learned in database incident
More discussion and thought should have gone into the decision to
publish a database of concealed carry holders in the state.
We heard from literally thousands of people after our decision two
weeks ago to post an online database of people in the state permitted
to carry concealed handguns. Many people presented rational
objections.
Many others responded with personal threats of violence and acts of
intimidation -- responses we declined to publish.
The difficulty we've faced since is how to respond to the rational
objections without validating the abusive tactics and attacks waged
against this newspaper and the columnist who wrote a piece linked to
the database.
Amid the firestorm of criticism, we've re-examined our
decision-making process and reflected on the valid criticisms.
We've come to some conclusions.
First, we had a legal right to post the database. These were public
records, legally obtained.
In some journalistic circles, that would be enough. The Washington
Post's Marc Fisher praised the decision to post the information and
accused The Roanoke Times of caving in to criticism when we decided
to pull the database.
[Egads! Using Marc Fisher, of all people, to justify doing anything
that you are claiming is rational, is truly an act of desperation.
This continues to show just how out of touch the Roanoke Times really
is. - PVC]
But upon reflection, we wish we had more fully discussed the
potential ramifications before we made this decision. Dozens of
concealed permit holders expressed heartfelt fear because of the
exposure of what they believed was private information.
We gave insufficient thought and discussion to the potential that
crime victims, law enforcement officers and domestic violence victims
might be put at risk if their addresses were published.
Though many of our critics believe that the database handed burglars
a shopping list of households with guns and abusers a list of their
victims, no one can point to a single incident where similar
publications led to a crime.
But we didn't know that until after the database was published. The
potential for harm is something we should have given far greater
thought to in making the decision.
For our failure to do so, The Roanoke Times apologizes.
We also regret that there was not a more compelling public purpose --
beyond illustrating how the Freedom of Information Act works --
behind the decision to post the database.
There are vital reasons these records should remain open.
But those reasons were not well illuminated -- or even particularly
well served -- by the publication of the entire database.
The public should be able to monitor how well various jurisdictions
screen concealed carry applicants.
So, yes, we made mistakes. The process for vetting this decision was
not as thorough as it should have been.
Those mistakes, though, in no way justify the outrageous and
threatening nature of much of the response. Very early on, a rational
discussion of this issue became all but impossible.
It was extremely important that we not allow the unacceptable antics
of the fringe to distract us from a careful examination of our own
decision-making.
We want to assure our readers that, where we erred, we will strive
not to repeat our mistakes. And we will continue to advocate
passionately for the free flow of information that is the lifeblood
of an open society.
I have forwarded some more emails on permit holders whose lives have been harmed by the Roanoke Times publishing of the CHP database on their web site to CNN reporter Kyung Lah.
Kyung just told me that she wants to get at least one of those stories into her piece, so she is going to move the story out until this Friday at 8 PM. (I'm going to tape tonight at 8 PM must in case the story doesn't get delayed for some reason).
--
The Roanoke Times has issued an explanation about their publishing
the CHP holder database. But they don't explain equating concealed
handgun permit holders with sex offenders, for example.
While I'm glad the Roanoke Times has said they don't want to repeat
their mistakes, if the Roanoke Times thinks that their explanation,
which still justifies much of what they did, is an apology, they are
greatly mistaken.
Until they issue an apology for slurring the reputations for 140,000
gun owners by equating permit holders with sex offenders and until
the paper holds someone at the RT accountable for the damage they
have done to many permit holders' lives, the RT has not settled the
issue.
BTW, to show what we are dealing with here, Christian Trejbal now has
an article that says when driving he won't yield to anyone who has a
political bumper sticker he disagrees with.
http://www.roanoke.com/editorials/trejbal/wb/wb/xp-110226
So everyone's safety comes second to Trejbal's politics? Well, at
least he is consistent in his view that the world revolves around him.
We still need another one hundred people to sign up for a VCDL
license plate (you do so on the VCDL web site), before we can order
them.
Don't you know that Trejbal would love to see one of those license
plates in front of him as he is driving down the road! ;-)
Here is the Roanoke Times' explanation of their actions on publishing
the CHP holder database:
http://www.roanoke.com/editorials/wb/110214
Lessons learned in database incident
More discussion and thought should have gone into the decision to
publish a database of concealed carry holders in the state.
We heard from literally thousands of people after our decision two
weeks ago to post an online database of people in the state permitted
to carry concealed handguns. Many people presented rational
objections.
Many others responded with personal threats of violence and acts of
intimidation -- responses we declined to publish.
The difficulty we've faced since is how to respond to the rational
objections without validating the abusive tactics and attacks waged
against this newspaper and the columnist who wrote a piece linked to
the database.
Amid the firestorm of criticism, we've re-examined our
decision-making process and reflected on the valid criticisms.
We've come to some conclusions.
First, we had a legal right to post the database. These were public
records, legally obtained.
In some journalistic circles, that would be enough. The Washington
Post's Marc Fisher praised the decision to post the information and
accused The Roanoke Times of caving in to criticism when we decided
to pull the database.
[Egads! Using Marc Fisher, of all people, to justify doing anything
that you are claiming is rational, is truly an act of desperation.
This continues to show just how out of touch the Roanoke Times really
is. - PVC]
But upon reflection, we wish we had more fully discussed the
potential ramifications before we made this decision. Dozens of
concealed permit holders expressed heartfelt fear because of the
exposure of what they believed was private information.
We gave insufficient thought and discussion to the potential that
crime victims, law enforcement officers and domestic violence victims
might be put at risk if their addresses were published.
Though many of our critics believe that the database handed burglars
a shopping list of households with guns and abusers a list of their
victims, no one can point to a single incident where similar
publications led to a crime.
But we didn't know that until after the database was published. The
potential for harm is something we should have given far greater
thought to in making the decision.
For our failure to do so, The Roanoke Times apologizes.
We also regret that there was not a more compelling public purpose --
beyond illustrating how the Freedom of Information Act works --
behind the decision to post the database.
There are vital reasons these records should remain open.
But those reasons were not well illuminated -- or even particularly
well served -- by the publication of the entire database.
The public should be able to monitor how well various jurisdictions
screen concealed carry applicants.
So, yes, we made mistakes. The process for vetting this decision was
not as thorough as it should have been.
Those mistakes, though, in no way justify the outrageous and
threatening nature of much of the response. Very early on, a rational
discussion of this issue became all but impossible.
It was extremely important that we not allow the unacceptable antics
of the fringe to distract us from a careful examination of our own
decision-making.
We want to assure our readers that, where we erred, we will strive
not to repeat our mistakes. And we will continue to advocate
passionately for the free flow of information that is the lifeblood
of an open society.
