Blinded by the (Sun-)Light
I’ve had to to there with “sunshine” laws in general, and their pollyannish names in particular. Society has long outgrown its fetish with real sunshine, too little of which can be problematic but too much of which causes everything from sunburn to melanoma. We (meaning all rational individuals, myself included) know damned well what too much literal sunshine can do; it’s part of the reason our homes and offices have roofs over them, for chrissake. Yet somehow we (and by that I mean the smarmy, non-royal “we,” which means either “you idiots” or “those idiots,” not any group of individuals that includes myself) seem to forget that the same problems exist with the figurative version of sunshine, i.e., the naive notion that disclosing stuff is always good.
News media are, unsurprisingly, among the worst offenders. In the big leagues, papers like the New York Times (and, to a lesser degree, the Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times) got the brilliant idea to publish every detail they could about the NSA wiretaps and the SWIFT program, both of which had until then been effective tools in the global war on something even more dangerous than Lite-Brites. Here in bush league territory, Christian Tejbal of the Roanoke Times thinks small and goes after ordinary citizens instead. Specifically, his idea of how to celebrate “Sunshine Week” was to liken Virginians with concealed handgun permits to registered sex offenders and publish their names and home addresses as punishment for exercising their Second Amendment rights.
The list stayed up for about a day, inviting comments. Here’s mine (the one they published):
Christian, your snotty article and your gross invasion of law abiding citizens’ privacy requires one of two actions:
- Explain what the hell kind of good it was supposed to do for anyone other than the violent ex-lovers some CHP holders were trying to get away from (and whose violent exes now know where they live) or
- Admit that you are an irresponsible jerk who has no business being a journalist.
Here’s the unpublished one that followed:
Christian Tejbal should be fired, as should anyone else who approved his boneheaded decision to invade the privacy of 135,000 law abiding Virginians. Now. That idiot’s idea of “sunshine” is precisely what got actress Rebecca Schaeffer (and Lord only knows how many others) killed. At least Schaeffer’s killer had to pay a sleazy detective agency $250 to obtain the information your pathetic excuse for a newspaper provides for free.
Lastly, here’s a little “sunshine” on the creep who started it all. I’m sure he won’t mind, as Sunshine Week isn’t over yet.
Christian Trejbal
675 School Lane
Christiansburg, VA 24073
Punk probably thinks “Christiansburg” is named after him.
UPDATE: The database was removed and replaced with a they-a culpa. My favorite part:
“When we posted the information, we had every reason to believe that the data the State Police had supplied would comply with the statutes. But people have notified us that the list includes names that should not have been released,” said Debbie Meade, president and publisher of The Roanoke Times.
No kidding.
UPDATE x2: Michelle Malkin has more. Don’t know how I missed this at the time.
March 15th, 2007 at 9:04 am
Look at it this way: He is doing the criminals of Virginia a public service — he is telling them which houses not to burglarize and which Virginian not to mug. The rational ones will leave the homes on that list alone. That will reduce the number of emergency room visits which would have resulted when they assaulted armed “castles.”
In turn, that will reduce the demand for emergency medical services, which will effectively increase the supply of such services to the rest of us . . . and lead to lower health care costs for everybody.
March 15th, 2007 at 2:38 pm
What. The. Hell.
March 15th, 2007 at 5:48 pm
I was all with you until you published Christian’s information.
Two wrongs don’t make a right.
March 15th, 2007 at 7:00 pm
Mark: Or they’ll wait until they know the person in question has left, on the grounds that there’s a good chance he or she is not carrying at this instant, or owns more than one gun…
March 15th, 2007 at 9:33 pm
Mark, I don’t think too many criminals seek out their homes by Internet research. I hope they do, because doing so is bound to leave a trail that will make them easier to catch.
Jody, three words: turnabout fair play. Besides, since Trejbal himself thinks it’s OK to publish people’s home addresses, how is doing that to him a “wrong” at all?
March 16th, 2007 at 9:10 am
xlrq — do I have to include an “/irony” tag?
Seriously, though, criminals are rational beings. Overall crime rates in Texas dropped slightly after carry-concealed laws were passed. Crimes for gainagainst people — muggings, automobile carjacking, armed robbery, and hot burglary (where a burglar enters a house known to be occupied) — plummeted. Crime against property — unoccupied burglary, car theft, etc, — rose sharply. The bad guys are not deterred by a stretch in the pen — that is a cost of doing business. OTOH, being shot by a potential victim is getting dead in a real-and-now present, and is viewed as not worth it.
March 16th, 2007 at 12:11 pm
Besides, since Trejbal himself thinks it’s OK to publish people’s home addresses, how is doing that to him a “wrong” at all?
Because you (and I) believe it to be wrong.
March 16th, 2007 at 9:04 pm
This all ignores the fact there should not be such a list in the first place, as there should not be a permit required in the first place.
As for publishing the good Mr Trejbel’s address, I say good on you for doing it. I am willing to bet he knew precisely what he was doing: making trouble for folks who have conformed with the law. Nertz to him.
March 16th, 2007 at 9:52 pm
Under the circumstances, I don’t believe it to be wrong. My moral code allows for revenge, as long as it targets only the offender and does not exceed the gravity of the original offense. Tit for tat, but no more. He published my home address, I published his. It doesn’t get any tittier or tattier than that.
But the notion that it was OK for me to wrong him in proportion to his wronging of me is all my perspective, not his. From his, neither of us wronged the other at all. You seem to be operating according to the golden rule. I prefer the platinum rule: treat others as they wish to be treated, not necessarily as you would want to be treated if you were them, which you’re not.
March 16th, 2007 at 10:25 pm
Nice try, Xrlq. Disclaimer: I’m not saying I think it was a particularly bad thing to publish the man’s info–how hard did you have to look to find it? the phone book? Anyway, but your “platinum rule,” while it sounds good, doesn’t apply in this case–of course he doesn’t *wish* to be treated the way he treated all of you gun owners. Why, you were published for doing something people disapprove of! Nobody could possibly disapprove of letting the public know who has guns, and comparing their owners to sex offenders!
In short, he certainly doesn’t wish to have disapproval visited on him any more than you did. He can stack up his case all he wants for “it’s not wrong,” but his reaction to having his info published might actually tell where the croquet ball lies–i.e. if he squeaks, all his arguments for having published your info are right out.
That’s assuming he’s dumb enough to squeak, since if he did all his arguments would be right out.
March 16th, 2007 at 10:40 pm
So was he. He published my address simply for holding a permit to carry, which some people disapprove of but most don’t. I published his for being a prick, an act which nearly everyone (including, oddly enough, most pricks) disapproves of.
Then again, your basic point is right. The minute he admits that he doesn’t approve of having his personal data spread all over the Internet is the minute he admits that his cheap stunt on gun owners amounted to something other than spreading “sunshine.”
March 16th, 2007 at 11:21 pm
I was speaking as him, mind. Any sentence ending in ! was his POV.
Funny enough, people frequently don’t quite see the equivalence when something they do is done to them in turn. Especially when they think they had a good reason.
March 17th, 2007 at 2:20 pm
FG: I agree Vermont-style carry is the ideal, but I’m not sure it would fly here politically (even if it passed the General Assembly, Gov. Kaine would almost certainly veto it), and even if it did it could cause problems for Virginians traveling to other states. If I were king of the commonwealth for a day, I’d decree Alaska-style carry, making it legal for residents to pack without a permit but still issuing voluntary permits to those who choose to apply for them and meet the requisite criteria. And as long as even voluntary permits exist, there will still be a list, and dammit, it needs to be kept private in all but a few narrow cases (e.g., where there is evidence of corruption).
March 20th, 2007 at 2:32 am
This week in Trejbal’s world, we’re “criminal” if we dry our clothes in, you know, clothes dryers.
March 25th, 2007 at 5:44 pm
Mr Trejbal sacrificed his own anonymity, by publishing under a by-line. Our esteemed host’s only failure is that he failed to include Mr Trejbal’s home telephone, cell phone and e-mail addresses.
August 23rd, 2007 at 11:36 pm
[...] Privacy for me, but not for thee if you oppose me. Where have I heard that before? [...]
May 15th, 2011 at 7:07 am
[...] damnum absque injuria checks into Roanoke in Blinded by the (Sun-)Light. [...]