Politics: For Your Information
The New York Times has an interesting story about a vexing free speech issue. William Sheehan posts the home addresses, phone numbers and Social Security numbers of law enforcement personnel in Washington state on his web site. The state legislature enacted a law that appeared to specifically target Mr. Sheehan's activity, but a judge eventually threw the law out as a too-narrow restriction on free speech.
But Mr. Meehan, law enforcement officials argue, is endangering the lives of officers and their families, without accountability.
The kicker to the story, and I suspect the reason the piece goes from a lifeless wire piece to a New York Times item is the closing clause. The spokesman for the police department in Sheehan's home town, after admitting that no identity theft or targeting of police officers has occurred, makes a plain threat:
Now I don't know that Mr. Meehan's website is defensible. I have concerns, as I did about the Nuremberg Files anti-abortion websites. But the information he publishes is all retrieved from public domain sources. Meehan does appear to have a beef with the police that makes him want to break down the privacy walls for peace officers. But the thinly-veiled threat is almost too much to take.
I could never imagine that Mr. Meehan would be interested in having vigilantes go to the homes of police officers and exact justice (though that or something like that could occur). I think he's probably trying to push them in a way that the public normally feels vulnerable and the police routinely feel untouchable. But the public information officer's threat really doesn't paint a very sympathetic impression of the police in this story. I'l interested in what the outcome could be.
The New York Times has an interesting story about a vexing free speech issue. William Sheehan posts the home addresses, phone numbers and Social Security numbers of law enforcement personnel in Washington state on his web site. The state legislature enacted a law that appeared to specifically target Mr. Sheehan's activity, but a judge eventually threw the law out as a too-narrow restriction on free speech.
But Mr. Meehan, law enforcement officials argue, is endangering the lives of officers and their families, without accountability.
The kicker to the story, and I suspect the reason the piece goes from a lifeless wire piece to a New York Times item is the closing clause. The spokesman for the police department in Sheehan's home town, after admitting that no identity theft or targeting of police officers has occurred, makes a plain threat:
Brightening, Lieutenant Caldwell said some officers even welcomed the posting of their home addresses, if that encouraged Mr. Sheehan to visit.
"If he wants to drop by the house," Lieutenant Caldwell said, "the police officers would be more than happy to welcome him. We're all armed and trained."
Now I don't know that Mr. Meehan's website is defensible. I have concerns, as I did about the Nuremberg Files anti-abortion websites. But the information he publishes is all retrieved from public domain sources. Meehan does appear to have a beef with the police that makes him want to break down the privacy walls for peace officers. But the thinly-veiled threat is almost too much to take.
I could never imagine that Mr. Meehan would be interested in having vigilantes go to the homes of police officers and exact justice (though that or something like that could occur). I think he's probably trying to push them in a way that the public normally feels vulnerable and the police routinely feel untouchable. But the public information officer's threat really doesn't paint a very sympathetic impression of the police in this story. I'l interested in what the outcome could be.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home