TexasCHLforum.com

"In retaliation - and to illustrate the ease of finding personal information
when given a name - the [Buckeye Firearms Association] began printing
personal information about Sandusky Register Managing Editor Matt
Westerhold. The information, while personal, is available through public
records searches.

"On its website, the group has printed Westerhold's phone numbers,
automobile records, traffic ticket record, the address of a home he owns and
information about the mortgage on the property. It has also printed redacted
information on his birth date and Social Security number."

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?P ... 0705a.html

I find myself wondering if this was the best way to handle this. It has the feel of abuse by the very people we are supposedly trying to protect with confidentiality.

I don't like my personal information bandied about (yeah, I know you can find it if you really want to do so), but doing so in retaliation for a newspaper violating confidentiality for CHL holders just seems wrong somehow.

I realize it isn't anyone's business if I hold a CHL. I fully supported the CHL confidentiality laws. I just don't know if this was really the best response to the publication of personal data.

If this was Wapners courtroom, Ol' Doug would be calling it, "The Case of what's good for the Goose isn't so good for the Gander".
I hope that Mr. Westerhold now sees the error of his ways and will be more appreciative of other peoples right to privacy.

Mithras,
I don't think that publishing his social security number was appropriate, but the publishing of his home address and other personal information was meant to drive home the point that most people do not want their personal information published for everyone to read. It makes one feel very vulnerable. I have not doubt that the newspaper's purpose was to intimidate CHL holders by publishing their personal information.

When I first read about this Ohio paper publishing personal information of CHL holders, the first groups I thought of were stalking victims and women fleeing abusive partners. These two sets of the population require that their addresses and whereabouts remain private in order to remain safe. I would hate to be in their shoes; to have this happen would be extremely disruptive to their already difficult lives.

The editor isn't likely being stalked, but there are members of the CHL community whose lives are not so safe.

I sure hope someone asked that newspaper editor how he would feel if he had to pass a federal background check and buy a license to exercise his 1st Amendment rights

I thought about this for a while.

In retaliation ...

That's the key. If something is wrong, doing it to someone in retribution is wrong. If someone breaks your arm, you're not allowed to break his arm in retribution. Our legal system has other remedies.

I doubt this action changed the opinion of the editor or anyone else. People who want to publish names and addresses of CHL holders (or whatever they are called in another state) think that CHL holders are a threat. Conversely, they think people who don't have CHLs are somehow less of a threat.

- Jim

Rex B wrote:I sure hope someone asked that newspaper editor how he would feel if he had to pass a federal background check and buy a license to exercise his 1st Amendment rights

HighVelocity wrote: If this was Wapners courtroom, Ol' Doug would be calling it, "The Case of what's good for the Goose isn't so good for the Gander".

Newspapers are struggling for circulation these days, and generating controversy is one way to grab the attention of potential readers. Likewise, I think CHLs and NRA members can grab the attention of the editors by making statements with their checkbooks.

Venus Pax wrote:Mithras,
I don't think that publishing his social security number was appropriate,

They didn't publish his SSN; they redacted both the SSN and date of birth. They showed far more restraint and responsibility in their response than did the publisher.

From the Buckeye article:

The real goldmine for the person who intends to cause harm to Mr. Westerhold is his Dissolution. With little effort we find his date of birth is 11/**/1958 and his Social Security number is 2**-56-6***. We also see his prior employment history and yearly salary. Having his full name, date of birth, social security number, prior employer, prior salary and current employer and a guess at his salary, combined with knowing from the Dissolution that he has/had an Auto Loan with XYZ bank and knowing his current mortgage amount and details, it would be child’s play for a bad guy to open up credit accounts and commit various other acts of identity theft against him.

Speaking of privacy... I hope everyone knows that if you own real property in Texas, anyone --anyone-- can walk into your county courthouse and get your name, address, and SSN right off the tax records.

There was an attempt this year to require the SSN to be redacted before records were made accessible to the public, but it would have shut down the landman business (among others), because counties don't have the time, staff, or money to do that.

It is a huge gaping flaw in the system in Texas and most other states.

Venus Pax wrote:Mithras,
I don't think that publishing his social security number was appropriate, but the publishing of his home address and other personal information was meant to drive home the point that most people do not want their personal information published for everyone to read. It makes one feel very vulnerable. I have not doubt that the newspaper's purpose was to intimidate CHL holders by publishing their personal information.

When I first read about this Ohio paper publishing personal information of CHL holders, the first groups I thought of were stalking victims and women fleeing abusive partners. These two sets of the population require that their addresses and whereabouts remain private in order to remain safe. I would hate to be in their shoes; to have this happen would be extremely disruptive to their already difficult lives.

The editor isn't likely being stalked, but there are members of the CHL community whose lives are not so safe.

I understand completely. These are the same groups I first thought of when I heard of this. I agree that publishing names & addresses of CHL holders is unforgivably irresponsible. I just don't think doing something similar in retaliation is appropriate. As has been said, two wrongs don't make a right. In this case, I'm pretty sure it just made the editor convinced that CHL holders are a bunch of thugs.

Mithras61 the editor did not seem to believe listing CHL holders personal information was wrong so in his eyes printing his information must as well be public service; unless of course he has a double standard here one must make that assumption.

Retaliation does not exist if their is no victim. If the party that you are going after believes that it is acceptable behavior to publish this type of information then there is no victim applying the logic used by the editor.

In fact, the editor should be proud to take advantage of his 1st ammendment rights and therefore be grateful that someone positioned him as such paraphrasing from his own quote.

I love that they did this, what is good for the goose.......

I can't say I agree with this, but that doesn't keep me from giggling with glee.

< me inside

< me outside

neal6325 wrote:Mithras61 the editor did not seem to believe listing CHL holders personal information was wrong so in his eyes printing his information must as well be public service; unless of course he has a double standard here one must make that assumption.

Retaliation does not exist if their is no victim. If the party that you are going after believes that it is acceptable behavior to publish this type of information then there is no victim applying the logic used by the editor.

In fact, the editor should be proud to take advantage of his 1st ammendment rights and therefore be grateful that someone positioned him as such paraphrasing from his own quote.

I love that they did this, what is good for the goose.......

I understand what you're saying, but I subscribe a different view. For me, I know it's wrong, so it doesn't matter if the editor thinks it's right or not. I would have to find a higher road to persuade him of my correctness. Doing to him what I consider to be wrong when it is done to me seems an unnecessary violation of my principles.

KBCraig wrote:

Venus Pax wrote:Mithras,
I don't think that publishing his social security number was appropriate,

They didn't publish his SSN; they redacted both the SSN and date of birth. They showed far more restraint and responsibility in their response than did the publisher.

From the Buckeye article:

The real goldmine for the person who intends to cause harm to Mr. Westerhold is his Dissolution. With little effort we find his date of birth is 11/**/1958 and his Social Security number is 2**-56-6***. We also see his prior employment history and yearly salary. Having his full name, date of birth, social security number, prior employer, prior salary and current employer and a guess at his salary, combined with knowing from the Dissolution that he has/had an Auto Loan with XYZ bank and knowing his current mortgage amount and details, it would be child’s play for a bad guy to open up credit accounts and commit various other acts of identity theft against him.

Speaking of privacy... I hope everyone knows that if you own real property in Texas, anyone --anyone-- can walk into your county courthouse and get your name, address, and SSN right off the tax records.

There was an attempt this year to require the SSN to be redacted before records were made accessible to the public, but it would have shut down the landman business (among others), because counties don't have the time, staff, or money to do that.

It is a huge gaping flaw in the system in Texas and most other states.

It gets worse. Try your local county's tax appraisal district website. You can search by name, address or by zooming in the map. It will give you the value of the house and the tax rates for number of years. It used to have the floorplan of each building but the 2005 legislature required that information to be removed.

The website if full of valuable information usually. Combine the appraisal district website with a secretary of state search usually results in all property owned by a person either personally or via a corporation.

Mithras61 - fair enough, understanding your personal principals regarding this and your position is respectable.

Often it is not until a crisis that some come around to believe that 2nd ammendment rights are important and start excercising them. It usually a life changing experience personally or to someone close to them that forces this change in some people.

I believe the same is true for a lot of people and this may be the life changing event that forces this editor to understand the power he wields utilizing his 1st ammendment rights. If posting his imformation puts him in the shoes of those who's right he violated then society is better for it. I believe as a member of society it is our responsiblity to act when we see an injustice and I believe the action was an appropriate response.

Now that stated, I do not think they went far enough. If my name were on a list there would have been posting with information pertaining to the writer, as much information regarding any advertisers who supported the paper AFTER the incident, members of the Board or Owners as well. I would gurantee a change in policy after that. Let the Houston rag list my name and info and I will start at the bottom and work to the top. I gurantee they will fully understand the power of the 1st ammendment before I fold my hand and I will sleep well at night knowing I made the community a better place for it. My personal principals would not allow to sit idle and sleep.