Where does the First Amendment end and the right to personal privacy begin?
In today’s world, lines are blurred as traditional media strives to be more edgy and accessible while new forms of media continually test long-established boundaries.
Heading up to the All-Star Game, an incident occurred that seems worthy of further review, sort of like how a questionable home run call now can rely on the use of instant replay.
Riverfront Times, a St. Louis-based print and online entity, fosters a “reputation for tweaking townsfolk in high places”. RFT also has a serious, professional side as evidenced by their recent “Guide to All-Star Week”, a document designed to provide visitors useful information about events, activities, restaurants and nightlife.
It seemed an admirable effort – with one possible exception. In a section whose subject was touring St. Louis-based baseball landmarks, the Guide included home addresses of a number of current and former Cardinals players, including Albert Pujols.
This reportedly incensed several members of the organization, including The Franchise, and as a result, RFT’s credentials for the All-Star Game and regular season were revoked by the Cardinals and MLB.
In an apology that seemed less than fully sincere, RFT not only pointed out that the source of the addresses was tax rolls available to anyone anonymously on the internet, apparently as a public service, they also provided the link. I guess that way in case you didn’t pick up a copy of the Guide, you can search out your favorite Cardinals’ home addresses yourself.
Sadly, in the world in which we live, public figures and their families need to be concerned about their security at all times. This certainly includes professional baseball players. Too many examples of senseless violence have occurred that could have been avoided.
Fans have every right to attend Cardinals games and cheer or boo their favorite or least-favorite player, but shouldn’t the line be drawn before we reach the point that they and their families’ homes become the target of an onslaught of gawkers like out of some cheesy Beverly Hills scene?
Brian, that is a storm you should probably stay out of. Personally would pull this down, least you find yourself under scrutiny. First amendment posturing is just the beginning of real trouble for those folks. They screwed up. Dangerously. There is trouble and money involved.
The RFT guy admits to being puerile; no argument from me.
An underlying problem may be the property tax folks making data available on line. Perhaps this is justified in the cause of transparency and civic accountability? If so, maybe this should be carefully re-thought with more respect for privacy, security, and identity theft.
With Google Maps and spy satellites, people can go on line and scope out where others live.
While there may be some advantages, there are may also be some unpleasant downside consequences.
There is no possible positive motivation for publically advertising anyone’s home address. Random individuals have no reason whatsoever to need to know where a ball player lives. I can’t imagine what this guy was trying to do if not cause trouble at least or harm at worst.
There seem two issues. One is whether RFT is doing anything socially useful by advertising the residences of ballplayers and their families? There seems the justification that this is in keeping with tweaking the high and mighty. This can be done in other ways (e.g., humor by the Onion). Kidnappers cost the famous aviator Lindberg one of his children. Celebreties are people too, though there are those who will attack or pester them. They deserve some room to live lives.
However, the root availability of this residence information is coming from a government entity. So in an odd sense, RFT could be said to be unintentionally fulfilling a public service by disclosing that there is a lot of traditionally personal information leaking into the public domain, with easy access to anyone, with any motives. This might reasonably trouble more people than just baseball players.
Obviously I have a minority veiw on this. Why should the RFT be punished for publishing public information? Could the Cards have handled this in a less confrontational manner? I don’t agree with that the RFT should have done (though there may be some context I’m unaware of) but there is a difference between what is right and what is legal.
Why should the Cardinals have handled this in a less confrontational manner? It was a very hostile action on the part of the RFT. Revoking their credentials should be automatic. Taking action that will publically harm the credibility of the RFT is an entirely appropriate response. Just because the action may or may not have been legal doesn’t mean that it wasn’t deplorable.
The root source of this disclosure of names of people who own houses seems to be a government entity. It is not the Riverfront Times.
Even if there is a reason to have a data base with houses (their estimated values and taxes), names should not be available to the general public, via the Internet. The government entity of course needs to have the names for its purposes, but the name informaiton has to be kept secure from general public inquiry via the Web.
To reason by analogy, would you be happy if anyone could go to an IRS web site and see what your income and tax are, plus your mailing address?
It’s an age-old debate – at what point do you put limits on the First Amendment?
The Supreme Court, many years ago, ruled that limits *are* permissible in a case where harm may befall – a person does not have the right, for instance, to yell ‘fire” in a crowded theater (I believe Holmes was the one who used that particular wording in his written opinion on the matter).
Addresses are all over the place, though – in government records, in casino records, and yes, on google maps. There’s a website, furthermore, that links to the google map to celebrity houses.
And this is just publicly-available information. What the government can get their hands on is far more detailed, one might even call it “invasive”. And casino surveillance has become a science; one of my co-workers tells me surveillance once called her because they saw that she was looking at the insurance information of a co-worker; she had to explain that it was her *husband’s* records she was looking at (he’s an on-call kitchen employee at the same casino) but she was a little shaken up to realize that surveillance could read her computer screen.
Sorry for the digression – you’ve seen the google maps where it gets fuzzy when you zoom in to closer than (I think) a 10-meter shot. The government satellite images have no such restriction; any time I’m outside, I expect that the government is looking at me and zooming in on my telephone and reading what number I’m punching in. My little Magellan device is telling me where I am and how fast I’m going – the government equivalent probably knows how much gas I’ve used and whether or not I properly used my turn signal.
My point in all this is that there’s no such thing as privacy any more. Individuals and organizations can try to at least put the brakes on public disclosures – as the Cards did with this disclosure of Albert’s home address – but ultimately such efforts will be futile; if someone wants to find this stuff out, they can do so.
FWIW, here is the Clark County Assessor’s page on my house. Public record. I imagine my IRS info is out there somewhere. Ironic that one of the things that brought Nixon down was his getting into IRS records; nowadays, that’s routine.
http://redrock.co.clark.nv.us/assrrealprop/pclDetail.aspx?hdnParcel=17612614026&hdnInstance=pcl7
Think this. Albert’s Agent. Wainwrights Agent. etc…….. Cost of team added security$ Cost of potential liabilities.$ They will never have credentials again. Or advertising. It is inevitable that there will be a law suit based on the character and admissions in the apology. Think, this a wonderful time for Albert’s agent to earn his keep. It is quiet now because they don’t need “Janet Jackson wardrobe malfunction” publicity to exacerbate the problem. They RFT guys just screwed up, but the expenses will create legal issues that will seek a fall guy. Big time Agents will incorporate you, so this tax roll search invasion doesn’t happen.
To find perspective think……….how many prostitutes with there pimps came into town for the festivities, how many street drug thugs. How many grifters just passing through. This was a dangerous situation and reeks not of rousting the big guys, but of naive idolatry and other things only guessed at by people living outside the mid-west.
JMo: The county assessor info for Clark County gets my goat. I do not know the norm for the country (and for all I know, my house and address are listed somewhere too), but its crazy that this kind of personal information is available to everybody via the Web.
Also crazy is it looks like they tripled your assessed value in just one year! The economy is sinking, but your taxable value is soaring!
Really, really, really annoying. I can understand why Albert was mad.