Journal News , a Gannett paper, sparked controversy, including publication by a blogger (additional here) of equally personal yet publicly available information about the editors and writers of the Journal News...
...Which brings me to a comment submitted last night. It was from a first-time commenter, and it contained personal contact information for the Chairwoman of Gannett, including home address, telephone numbers, second home, neighbors, and relatives... I don’t like the tactic, but it is something done by a Gannett newspaper (at least as to names and addresses).
I’m on board with adopting some of the left’s Alinskyite tactics, like holding them to their own rules, but does this go too far, particularly since she was not directly involved?
An LI commenter, one "Subotai Bahadur", offered what I thought was an exceptionally insightful response:
Professor, we are literally in the end stage of pretending that politics as normal mean something. The Constitutional order has been de facto overturned, while retaining the external trappings of the old order.
The government is at open war on the Bill of Rights. Congress has lost the power of the purse and no longer represents anything but their own vested interests. The rule of law is gone.
Our courts have withdrawn from the fray or have been subverted. In any major issue, it seems that the courts rule that there is no one who has standing to oppose the will of the State; so the State wins. And if a matter does get before the courts, the courts rule based on politics, not law.
The Supreme Court is no longer a barrier defending the [Constitution]. When Chief Justice Roberts suddenly reversed his entire life’s work to rule that the Federal government could violate the Constitution so long as it did it in the guise of a tax; it was obvious that he has been [co-opted] and is now merely a tool of the regime.
Moderating our conduct while the country is still on this side of violence will not prevent things going from bad to worse. Things are going to get worse even if we become martyred saints. Our restraint in the face of ongoing attacks merely removes restraints on the conduct of those who seek the destruction of our country and Constitution. If their escalations are only met with feeble responses on our part, they are encouraged to push the envelope until they reach the point of violence.
So long as no law is broken [after all, that is the standard of combat that they have set; akin to say the real rules on the use of poison gas in warfare] then hit back twice as hard. Make them deal with their families and their neighbors being angry at them. And publicly out the nature of their biases in every thing they publish. Keep in mind that just recently the State got the power to wiretap, investigate, and arrest people without warrant of probably cause. Do you think that they are going to limit what they dig up in the name of “decency”? Look at their record.
Every employee of the paper should have a full background check, as deep as can be done within the bounds of the law. If a prospective employer can find it, then it should be legal. And publishable. Criminal records, court judgments, membership in various organizations, political contributions, public statements. If the investigation leads to family members, so be it. Reveal it all.
Given the nature of the Journo-List 2.0 media; it would be wise for all of their major personalities to be subject to the same investigation as the Journal-News’ staff just to have in reserve for when they next outrageously lie. And every personality in the current administration. There is a lot of work to do.
Oh, and one more little cross check on the Journal-News’ map. Do not take it on faith that their map was complete. Follow up on it and make sure that they did not “accidentally” forget to publish the names of various politically or otherwise connected individuals that they did not want to offend. If there are political or other celebrities who are calling for the abolition of the 2nd Amendment while themselves being armed; that needs to be Alinsky-ed out.
If we are to have a hope of stopping the enemies of our country before they physically attack us, we have to make them pay a price and show that they will be opposed if they cross that line. Yielding to them does not accomplish that end.
I am reminded of a quote by Alexander Solzhenitsyn in his The Gulag Archipelago that seems on point. It was about the greatest regret of those in the slave labor camps:
What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand? --Part I The Prison Industry, Ch. 1 “Arrest” (p13, The Gulag Archipelago, Collins 1974)
The forces of the Left right now know that they attack us short of violence in perfect safety. We cannot let them think that that safety will be there when they inevitably turn to violence. Thus, we must strike back overwhelmingly before that line is crossed.
Hand-wringing aside, it turns out a simple Google search reveals that same personal information.
I'm guessing that women with restraining orders against abusive ex'es, those who had been threatened for their religious or political views, and others revealed by Gannett's unconscionable disclosures would back Subotai's position.