• Gun rights advocates can publish lawmakers' addresses, judge rules
    133 replies, posted
[QUOTE=geel9;51887767]Right, let's change the law so you can't publish a comprehensive list of everyone with a gun permit in NYC. Until that happens, fuck the lawmakers' privacy.[/QUOTE] except the source literally reported elected public officials receiving threatening phone calls and messages this is literally an affront to the basic value of democracy. if you had any interest in preserving that dying institution that your forefathers fought so hard for you would see that this is a major problem and having the attitude of "fuck the lawmakers privacy" for making legislation is not something you want this didn't even happen in NYC, this is about california. what the fuck do california legislators have to do with NYC law? [QUOTE=Ajacks;51887783]Lawmakers and representatives need to be transparent and visible to the public. We've got issues in the United States right now about lawmakers and representatives not communicating and even listening to their constituents, not doing what they were elected for and hiding behind their office. Ignoring official calls, letters, emails and generally doing whatever they please with no ability for the public to have their voices heard. It is an issue. They are first and foremost in service to their constituents, and they deserve to be heard.[/QUOTE] there's a difference between that and making it legal to openly phone them up and threaten them for passing laws you don't like america has a lot of problems with its democracy, but letting people know where they live and how to phone them in their private residence isn't going to make things more transparent and the legislators more willing to open up and talk to their constituents - it'll do the opposite
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;51887784]except the source literally reported elected public officials receiving threatening phone calls and messages this is literally an affront to the basic value of democracy. if you had any interest in preserving that dying institution that your forefathers fought so hard for you would see that this is a major problem and having the attitude of "fuck the lawmakers privacy" for making legislation is not something you want this didn't even happen in NYC, this is about california. what the fuck do california legislators have to do with NYC law?[/QUOTE] I wasn't aware that a lawmaker's life was more important than my own. It's okay for someone to publish my information publicly, but a lawmaker -- a [b]public official[/b] -- is entitled to complete privacy whereas I am not? Whether or not they are receiving "threatening calls" is a function of their publicity, not a function of their power. Anyone made public receives such threats. It's not NYC law, the list of permitholders was obtained through an FOIA request. The right course of action is of course tricky -- I don't want to undermine the FOIA by any means, but I'm simply not comfortable with it being legal to publish anyone's information in such a manner. If it's fair game, however, then it's fair game. I will never support laws that benefit solely lawmakers.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;51887784]except the source literally reported elected public officials receiving threatening phone calls and messages this is literally an affront to the basic value of democracy. if you had any interest in preserving that dying institution that your forefathers fought so hard for you would see that this is a major problem and having the attitude of "fuck the lawmakers privacy" for making legislation is not something you want this didn't even happen in NYC, this is about california. what the fuck do california legislators have to do with NYC law? there's a difference between that and making it legal to openly phone them up and threaten them for passing laws you don't like america has a lot of problems with its democracy, but letting people know where they live and how to phone them in their private residence isn't going to make things more transparent and the legislators more willing to open up and talk to their constituents - it'll do the opposite[/QUOTE] You can contact someone at their residence without it being a threat. If they are not responding and blocking all official means of contact, then the citizens they represent should be able to contact them directly.
[QUOTE=geel9;51887808]I wasn't aware that a lawmaker's life was more important than my own. It's okay for someone to publish my information publicly, but a lawmaker -- a [b]public official[/b] -- is entitled to complete privacy whereas I am not?[/quote] injustice doesn't excuse injustice [quote]Whether or not they are receiving "threatening calls" is a function of their publicity, not a function of their power. Anyone made public receives such threats.[/quote] considering that a large and powerful movement of people are actively going around "naming and shaming" legislators that they don't like and are making it easier and more acceptable to launch threats and intimidation at them, i think that there's more to the story here. imagine if a legislator who voted for gay marriage had his information made public by a religious organisation and then he received threatening phone calls and was constantly harassed in his private life for this. is that acceptable?
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;51887830]injustice doesn't excuse injustice considering that a large and powerful movement of people are actively going around "naming and shaming" legislators that they don't like and are making it easier and more acceptable to launch threats and intimidation at them, i think that there's more to the story here. imagine if a legislator who voted for gay marriage had his information made public by a religious organisation and then he received threatening phone calls and was constantly harassed in his private life for this. is that acceptable?[/QUOTE] Is it acceptable to make public the lawmakers who passed a bill? Of course it fucking is.
[QUOTE=geel9;51887860]Is it acceptable to make public the lawmakers who passed a bill? Of course it fucking is.[/QUOTE] That's not the question Sobotnik asked at all. lol
[QUOTE=F.X Clampazzo;51887901]That's not the question Sobotnik asked at all. lol[/QUOTE] Harassing or threatening anyone isn't okay but that doesn't make it not okay to publish information on what lawmakers voted on a bill. Just because you can find a business on Google Maps and then go firebomb it doesn't mean that Google Maps is at fault.
[QUOTE=geel9;51887860]Is it acceptable to make public the lawmakers who passed a bill? Of course it fucking is.[/QUOTE] so this applies regardless of the political alignment of the legislator - if they pass a law you don't like then you are well within your rights to demand their address and phone them up with threatening messages? [QUOTE=geel9;51887908]Harassing or threatening anyone isn't okay but that doesn't make it not okay to publish information on what lawmakers voted on a bill.[/QUOTE] the literal purpose of this ruling is to make it easier for people to harass and threaten legislators i cannot see a single other reason why it would otherwise be
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;51887911]so this applies regardless of the political alignment of the legislator - if they pass a law you don't like then you are well within your rights to demand their address and phone them up with threatening messages?[/QUOTE] When did I say it was okay to harass people? Never? Okay, cool then.
[QUOTE=zerglingv2;51886672]They should buy a gun for protection then, in case someone tries to break into their home and hurt them.[/QUOTE] That logic is kind of circular though isn't it? Buy a gun to protect yourself against gun ownership extremists? The doxxing remains the source of the issue here, not lack of protection.
[QUOTE=geel9;51887908]Harassing or threatening anyone isn't okay but that doesn't make it not okay to publish information on what lawmakers voted on a bill. Just because you can find a business on Google Maps and then go firebomb it doesn't mean that Google Maps is at fault.[/QUOTE] No one ever said it was wrong to publish information pertaining to who supported a law. The issue is when you take it to the point of publishing their personal address and means of contact without their consent to enable people to harass, harm or otherwise threaten their well being. You're pushing goal posts to misconstruct the argument.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;51887911]so this applies regardless of the political alignment of the legislator - if they pass a law you don't like then you are well within your rights to demand their address and phone them up with threatening messages? the literal purpose of this ruling is to make it easier for people to harass and threaten legislators i cannot see a single other reason why it would otherwise be[/QUOTE] Because currently it's legal to publish information on citizens in the exact same way as it's being published about lawmakers. I will not allow lawmakers to be protected more than other citizens. You can either publish information on everyone or nobody in this manner.
[QUOTE=geel9;51887931]Because currently it's legal to publish information on citizens in the exact same way as it's being published about lawmakers. I will not allow lawmakers to be protected more than other citizens. You can either publish information on everyone or nobody in this manner.[/QUOTE] make it nobody then, but it's pretty obvious that the objective of this ruling isn't to promote justice or improvement of the common welfare i don't think people who have guns or legislators should be doxxed, and you should be ashamed of yourself for trying to justify such doxxing just because you disagree with their politics this ruling shouldn't exist in the first place - it's bollocks to argue that an injustice somehow balances out another injustice
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;51887938]make it nobody then, but it's pretty obvious that the objective of this ruling isn't to promote justice or improvement of the common welfare i don't think people who have guns or legislators should be doxxed, and you should be ashamed of yourself for trying to justify such doxxing just because you disagree with their politics[/QUOTE] I don't think doxxing is justified. I don't think anyone should be able to be doxxed. I'm simply pointing out that if you allow private citizens to be doxxed publicly, then lawmakers must be held to the same standard.
[QUOTE=geel9;51887943]I don't think doxxing is justified. I don't think anyone should be able to be doxxed. I'm simply pointing out that if you allow private citizens to be doxxed publicly, then lawmakers must be held to the same standard.[/QUOTE] two wrongs don't make a right this tit for tat bullshit won't fix your problems. it'll only make them worse
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;51887961]two wrongs don't make a right this tit for tat bullshit won't fix your problems. it'll only make them worse[/QUOTE] It will when the people who are impacted by the law are the ones who are able to change it. Lawmakers are not special. They do not deserve special laws and protections that citizens do not also get. If doxxing is legal for citizens, it should be legal for lawmakers. It flies in the face of justice to allow such things to happen to your citizens and only intervene when it happens to you.
[QUOTE=geel9;51887970]It will when the people who are impacted by the law are the ones who are able to change it. Lawmakers are not special. They do not deserve special laws and protections that citizens do not also get. If doxxing is legal for citizens, it should be legal for lawmakers. It flies in the face of justice to allow such things to happen to your citizens and only intervene when it happens to you.[/QUOTE] and you fix it by committing an act of injustice in itself? listen buddy, american politics is more polarized, less democratic, and full of malice than ever. the last thing it needs now is adding fuel to that fire
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;51887991]and you fix it by committing an act of injustice in itself? listen buddy, american politics is more polarized, less democratic, and full of malice than ever. the last thing it needs now is adding fuel to that fire[/QUOTE] You fix it by amending the law, but if nobody's amending the law, you may need to abuse the law to demonstrate why it needs to be fixed.
[QUOTE=geel9;51888014]You fix it by amending the law, but if nobody's amending the law, you may need to abuse the law to demonstrate why it needs to be fixed.[/QUOTE] i dread the end result of this process
[QUOTE=hypno-toad;51887923]That logic is kind of circular though isn't it? Buy a gun to protect yourself against gun ownership extremists?[/QUOTE] I think that's the joke.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;51888080]i dread the end result of this process[/QUOTE] A law being amended after people realize that something shouldn't be legal? You realize that the only reason we're even [b]talking[/b] about this is because of this event? We, as humans, do not fix problems until they actually become problems.
[QUOTE=geel9;51888189]A law being amended after people realize that something shouldn't be legal? You realize that the only reason we're even [b]talking[/b] about this is because of this event? We, as humans, do not fix problems until they actually become problems.[/QUOTE] no, i just have low prospects for the future of your political system if this is how you approach problems with a "injustice must be responded to with injustice" things aren't going to get better as a result of this ruling, and you're a fool if you believe that politicians will somehow start behaving because of this
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;51888216]no, i just have low prospects for the future of your political system if this is how you approach problems with a "injustice must be responded to with injustice" things aren't going to get better as a result of this ruling, and you're a fool if you believe that politicians will somehow start behaving because of this[/QUOTE] I think you're seriously mischaracterizing my argument. I don't know why I would expect anything else, though, since you're the same person who legitimately argued that if we don't tax soda, that means it's okay to sell children.
[QUOTE=geel9;51888225]I think you're seriously mischaracterizing my argument. I don't know why I would expect anything else, though, since you're the same person who legitimately argued that if we don't tax soda, that means it's okay to sell children.[/QUOTE] i have no idea what the hell you're talking about or why this is relevant to put it succinctly as another poster wiser than i did earlier: [QUOTE=Lord of Boxes;51886660]Two wrongs don't make a right.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;51886657][url=http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/25/us/new-york-gun-permit-map/]Gun Control activist started the fire[/url], we merely adopted it for our own means.[/QUOTE] I'm someone who really wants to get into guns and am against gun control, but this is not the right way to do it.
Uh, you're a representative of the people. Prepare to have your constituents communicate with you. I have no sympathy for politicians living in a bubble far removed from the grievances of the people they represent. If somebody threatens them, throw them in prison. Done deal.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;51888216]no, i just have low prospects for the future of your political system if this is how you approach problems with a "injustice must be responded to with injustice" things aren't going to get better as a result of this ruling, and you're a fool if you believe that politicians will somehow start behaving because of this[/QUOTE] I would look at this from a technical perspective. Think of it as bug finding/fixing in the computer world. Someone makes a software, they release it and that's that. You tried to let them know about a bug you found in the software, through the official channels, so that they can make a patch and get it out to their clients. Unfortunately, said company wants nothing to do with it anymore, so in an effort to light a fire under their feet, you release the exploit publicly and force them to fix it. This is basically what Google has been doing with Microsoft with Google Project Zero. It's the same thing happening here, just in a political sense. Should people be exploiting it? Obviously not, but if that were the case, we wouldn't even have had to start talking about this. [editline]28th February 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=wauterboi;51888305]I'm someone who really wants to get into guns and am against gun control, but this is not the right way to do it.[/QUOTE] Nor is this even remotely the semi-correctish way to go about licensing/gun control. There is absolutely zero way to defend that NYC bullshit law.
[QUOTE=geel9;51887767]Right, let's change the law so you can't publish a comprehensive list of everyone with a gun permit in NYC. Until that happens, fuck the lawmakers' privacy.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=geel9;51887943]I don't think doxxing is justified. I don't think anyone should be able to be doxxed. I'm simply pointing out that if you allow private citizens to be doxxed publicly, then lawmakers must be held to the same standard.[/QUOTE] Fucked up shit happening in NYC doesn't justify doing fucked up shit in CA. A baseless argument my dude. "Us up here in Massachusetts are going to ban white people from voting in our state. Until white people in middle America start voting 'the right way (read: not Republican),' fuck their enfranchisement." <---- an equally ridiculous argument.
[QUOTE=Revenge282;51888528]I would look at this from a technical perspective. Think of it as bug finding/fixing in the computer world. Someone makes a software, they release it and that's that. You tried to let them know about a bug you found in the software, through the official channels, so that they can make a patch and get it out to their clients. Unfortunately, said company wants nothing to do with it anymore, so in an effort to light a fire under their feet, you release the exploit publicly and force them to fix it. This is basically what Google has been doing with Microsoft with Google Project Zero. It's the same thing happening here, just in a political sense. Should people be exploiting it? Obviously not, but if that were the case, we wouldn't even have had to start talking about this.[/QUOTE] real life isn't software and it's pretty obvious this is being used more to intimidate politicians than anything else one of the people spearheading (who was responsible for getting people to send the threatening messages) this writes under a pseudonym on his blog this is nothing but hypocrisy
why the fuck are people using a shitty law passed in NYC to justify a shitty ruling passed in California
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.