svtruth
Member
Is also spotlighting citizens who are not armed.
If a BG targets one of these, is the newspaper liable?
If a BG targets one of these, is the newspaper liable?
Publishing List of CCW
- Thread starter svtruth
- Start date
- Status
ArchAngelCD
Member.
Unfortunately the New Media no longer cares about their real job. They have given up on being the watch dog for the people and are now using their platform to push a political and ideological agenda. They should be liable but will find a way to use the First Amendment to protect themselves.
Car Knocker
Member
Not necessarily true. Not everyone who carries has a CCW license.
DMK
Member
Ethically? Yes, I believe so. They are putting people in danger for their own twisted agenda.
Logically? The liberals tried to sue gun makers for all the murders ever committed with guns. I'd say this fits the same rationalization.
In reality? I doubt they'd be found liable in court. Common sense and ethics today are very rare things.
Robert Hairless
Member
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2003
- Messages
- 3,983
No, a newspaper isn't liable for an injury that the public suffers as a result of the newspaper's acts. Newspapers can start wars, and have done so, and promote their own agendas in all other ways. They are protected by Freedom of the Press. It is an important freedom, for without it newspapers would have to assume more than minimal responsibilities. Any attempt to require newspapers to assume responsibilities is an attack on Freedom of the Press and the very foundation of American society. Even the way you phrased your question is an attack on those things we all hold sacred. It could lead to a state-controlled press, which is so much more badder than a press controlled by conglomerates that own multiple newspapers, broadcasting stations, and Internet web sites. That's good because it keeps us free from having the agenda set by people with other agendas. Shame on you. 
Smurfslayer
Member
Disagree.
In Virginia, it is unlawful to print or cause to be printed untrue allegations that tend to damage one's reputation etc. Further, one could raise -not that there is any guarantee- the issue that a newspaper has a "special relationship" with the public at large and a violation of the public trust, while actually violating Virginia law for the same act *could* have them liable.
It would no doubt be a very, very hard fought case. The First Amenment is not limitless in scope and there is reasonable regulation upon "abusive exercise" of it. Another example might be for a paper or other news outlet to publish in their "Arts" section what most people would call child porn. Sure, they could claim 1A protection, but if it was of such a nature as to offend the entire community's standards ultimately the "trier of fact" would determine them to be liable. So, could the paper be liable if someone were to suffer an injury in fact as a result of being published on a list such as the Roanoke Times "Scarlet letter" list? Maybe.
I would certainly love to see the reporter <cough> squirm under examination while under oath. I think that ultimately the paper would prevail -for now- but that the victory would by such that all of the dirty laundry aired may well drive away all their sponsorship, some staff, certainly a great many readers and ultimately shame them.
RH - I think you forgot to mention the "wall between Church and State"
In Virginia, it is unlawful to print or cause to be printed untrue allegations that tend to damage one's reputation etc. Further, one could raise -not that there is any guarantee- the issue that a newspaper has a "special relationship" with the public at large and a violation of the public trust, while actually violating Virginia law for the same act *could* have them liable.
It would no doubt be a very, very hard fought case. The First Amenment is not limitless in scope and there is reasonable regulation upon "abusive exercise" of it. Another example might be for a paper or other news outlet to publish in their "Arts" section what most people would call child porn. Sure, they could claim 1A protection, but if it was of such a nature as to offend the entire community's standards ultimately the "trier of fact" would determine them to be liable. So, could the paper be liable if someone were to suffer an injury in fact as a result of being published on a list such as the Roanoke Times "Scarlet letter" list? Maybe.
I would certainly love to see the reporter <cough> squirm under examination while under oath. I think that ultimately the paper would prevail -for now- but that the victory would by such that all of the dirty laundry aired may well drive away all their sponsorship, some staff, certainly a great many readers and ultimately shame them.
RH - I think you forgot to mention the "wall between Church and State"
ArchAngelCD
Member.
Robert Hairless,
I agree with what you say BUT, with those freedoms and protections comes responsibility. The Print Media has forgotten they have a responsibility to the people they claim to protect by printing everything they feel like printing. Responsible Journalists make have the right to print but should also have the responsibility of knowing what not to print. Just because you can doesn't mean you have to.
What would have happened if they printed the plans to "D" Day? They have the right to do so but would have gotten tens of Thousands of men killed. Where is the responsibility in today’s Media, it's sadly missing. A political agenda has clouded their thinking and their hate has made them dangerous, not protectors.
I agree with what you say BUT, with those freedoms and protections comes responsibility. The Print Media has forgotten they have a responsibility to the people they claim to protect by printing everything they feel like printing. Responsible Journalists make have the right to print but should also have the responsibility of knowing what not to print. Just because you can doesn't mean you have to.
What would have happened if they printed the plans to "D" Day? They have the right to do so but would have gotten tens of Thousands of men killed. Where is the responsibility in today’s Media, it's sadly missing. A political agenda has clouded their thinking and their hate has made them dangerous, not protectors.
flashman70
Member
As someone whose name was on the list, I'm mad. I understand it is a violation to publish info on crime victims - and a number of folks on the list are hiding from abusive partners or from someone they testified against. I think the newspaper has a liablity issue. Thankfully the searchable database has been taken down for now.
Hit them where they live
Advertising and subscriptions sales. "Oh, Im sorry. I just canceled my subscription because your ace reporter decided that his right to tell everybody I have a license to carry a concealed weapon is something everybody should know." The only people this impacts are me and anybody who wishes to victimize me or my family.
Advertising and subscriptions sales. "Oh, Im sorry. I just canceled my subscription because your ace reporter decided that his right to tell everybody I have a license to carry a concealed weapon is something everybody should know." The only people this impacts are me and anybody who wishes to victimize me or my family.
Thain
Member
Sadly, CCW licenses are public documents. Anyone can get ahold of them if they know how to fill out the forms, and how to navigate the bureacracy.
I don't like it, but newspapers are not violating anyones rights by publishing these lists. Now, depending on the editiorial comments that get printed alongside it, you might have a libel tort.
I don't like it, but newspapers are not violating anyones rights by publishing these lists. Now, depending on the editiorial comments that get printed alongside it, you might have a libel tort.
NailGun
Member
We just got a law passed that keeps the press form gaining access to CCW holder records.
There was a big uproar here when a South Dakota newspaper put the CCW holder information database on their website. I can't really imagine what "good" can come from publishing such a list. But then, this is from a publisher that churns out papers that are not fit to clean fish on.
http://www.nraila.org/CurrentLegislation/Read.aspx?ID=2043
We like our Governor!
NailGun
There was a big uproar here when a South Dakota newspaper put the CCW holder information database on their website. I can't really imagine what "good" can come from publishing such a list. But then, this is from a publisher that churns out papers that are not fit to clean fish on.
http://www.nraila.org/CurrentLegislation/Read.aspx?ID=2043
We like our Governor!
NailGun
The Columbus (Ohio) Dispatch had been editorializing about doing the same thing for a while. Nothing seems to have come of it, at least not that I've heard of, and isn't likely to. They did request the records, and I believe they received them, but right now the Dispatch is taking some PR heat from people over a public records request for school district student directories. Given their flimsy logic as far as this issue goes ("We need them to make sure student names are spelled right." Yes, they used 'right' instead of 'correctly'. Goes to show the standard of journalism involved, they can't even use proper grammar in their excuse for lack of basic research. Anyways....) I honestly can't see them pressing the issue at this point, especially given their much bally-hooed stance on privacy and identity theft.
GeorgiaGlocker
Member
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2006
- Messages
- 217
Thankfully here in the state of Georgia by state statute our CCW records are off limits to newspapers. television reporters, etc. Only law enforcement can gain access to the list if they have a legit reason.
Bob F.
Member
Didn't read all the posts but heard on Roanoke radio Q99 this AM enroute to work; Yoyo had bomb squad at his house last night. Turns out legitimate package, guess butt head is paranoid. Roanoke tTimes decided to pull the article from web page, not sure why (really why).
Bob
Bob
Mike Harbour
Member
As I said...
...in a thread just like this one, hit the papers where it hurts: their advertisers. Most of a newpaper's income is derived from ad sales, not the subscriber base. Sooo, target the paper's biggest advertisers with a letter or comment about why you'll no longer shop there. If enough people did this, it might have some affect, especially in the smaller markets.
Mike Harbour
Texan by birth, Montanan by choice
...in a thread just like this one, hit the papers where it hurts: their advertisers. Most of a newpaper's income is derived from ad sales, not the subscriber base. Sooo, target the paper's biggest advertisers with a letter or comment about why you'll no longer shop there. If enough people did this, it might have some affect, especially in the smaller markets.
Mike Harbour
Texan by birth, Montanan by choice
Robert Hairless
Member
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2003
- Messages
- 3,983
ArchAngelCD:
Alas, you think that the media has responsibilities. It has none.
There are some civil actions that you can bring against a newspaper or television station that you believe has harmed your reputation, but you will probably lose because the burden of proof is very heavy. Other than that, there are few legal consequences for the media.
It's really not much of an issue, though, because anyone can become a journalist and destroy anyone or anything else as long as it's done in a manner that does not involve demonstrable malice.
So if you want to bring down the New-York Times, for example, you probably could do it in a couple of years at most. All you need is a web site, some time, and some real crazy beliefs. For example, if you really believe that the ink and paper used by the Times will make its readers insane and their teeth fall out, start publishing that information on your web site, convince a few other people to help disseminate the information, and urge that they, everyone they communicate with, and the readers of your journalistic site to boycott the newspaper and its advertisers. It would be smart to stay away from non-productive matters, though: don't waste your time accusing the Times of political, economic, or social abuses. That would boost their standing. Be crazy: the crazier the better, as long as no one can prove you're being malicious.
Then you get to be a journalist and a publishing company, you're protected by the First Amendment in several ways, and you can operate in the best tradition of media irresponsibility.
Have you noticed that newspapers and network television have lost their audiences and are struggling to survive? Nobody in his right mind trusts their news divisions as sources of information. Dan Rather helped in their suicide. They are killing themselves.
You're talking about what ought to be. I agree with you. But I'm talking about what is.
In direct response to your hypothetical about what would have happened if the newspapers had published the D Day invasion plans in 1944, they wouldn't and they didn't. Even sleazy journalists of that generation had some ethics, most of them had a sense of responsibility, and most of them were committed to their country. My generation of parents taught their children that they live only for themselves. Our children's generation learned that lesson well and teach it to their children. The current generation therefore has only freedoms. Any one of these lice would publish the equivalent of those plans in their newspapers and on their web site in a skinny minute. Then they would editorialize about how the government failed the military who died.
They eat us, themselves, and each other. They defend their right to do so, say it's important for democracy, and everyone agrees. It's actually quite funny in a bizarre way.
Alas, you think that the media has responsibilities. It has none.
There are some civil actions that you can bring against a newspaper or television station that you believe has harmed your reputation, but you will probably lose because the burden of proof is very heavy. Other than that, there are few legal consequences for the media.
It's really not much of an issue, though, because anyone can become a journalist and destroy anyone or anything else as long as it's done in a manner that does not involve demonstrable malice.
So if you want to bring down the New-York Times, for example, you probably could do it in a couple of years at most. All you need is a web site, some time, and some real crazy beliefs. For example, if you really believe that the ink and paper used by the Times will make its readers insane and their teeth fall out, start publishing that information on your web site, convince a few other people to help disseminate the information, and urge that they, everyone they communicate with, and the readers of your journalistic site to boycott the newspaper and its advertisers. It would be smart to stay away from non-productive matters, though: don't waste your time accusing the Times of political, economic, or social abuses. That would boost their standing. Be crazy: the crazier the better, as long as no one can prove you're being malicious.
Then you get to be a journalist and a publishing company, you're protected by the First Amendment in several ways, and you can operate in the best tradition of media irresponsibility.
Have you noticed that newspapers and network television have lost their audiences and are struggling to survive? Nobody in his right mind trusts their news divisions as sources of information. Dan Rather helped in their suicide. They are killing themselves.
You're talking about what ought to be. I agree with you. But I'm talking about what is.
In direct response to your hypothetical about what would have happened if the newspapers had published the D Day invasion plans in 1944, they wouldn't and they didn't. Even sleazy journalists of that generation had some ethics, most of them had a sense of responsibility, and most of them were committed to their country. My generation of parents taught their children that they live only for themselves. Our children's generation learned that lesson well and teach it to their children. The current generation therefore has only freedoms. Any one of these lice would publish the equivalent of those plans in their newspapers and on their web site in a skinny minute. Then they would editorialize about how the government failed the military who died.
They eat us, themselves, and each other. They defend their right to do so, say it's important for democracy, and everyone agrees. It's actually quite funny in a bizarre way.
Smurfslayer
Member
Mike Harbour is right on the money; no pun intended. And in fact, don't be surprised if you find an organized effort to do just that. Soon.
Go after the lawmakers. Change the law where ccw is a matter of public record if you don't want names published. The papers aren't the ones violating anybody's rights. You signed your name and gave your fingerprints, knowing that it'd be public record, then scream when the records are made public. From the group that speaks so often of personal accountability.
lacoochee
Member
I don't believe the newspaper or the author of the article would be held to account. Having said that, were my child or wife killed because of the publishing of that information, I can assure you a judgment and punishment will be meted as dictated by natural law.
- Status