Just curious. Iwas reading how this killer stalked sexual offenders with an online state maintained data base of their locations, and I wondered what would happen I if a person decided to start posting the names and addresses of police officers or (non secret) CIA and FBI employees. What (if any) are the limitations on the ability of people to post publicly available information of non-undercover individuals.
I don’t know the answer to this question, but if you want a really in-depth analysis, law professor Eugene Volokh has written an article on what he calls “crime-facilitating speech.” That’s usually the concern in these kinds of cases – that someone will use the information you provide to harm someone.
There article can be found here, if you’re interested. It’s the second item in the “Free Speech” category.
A few years ago someone had a beef with the King County, Washington Police and put up a website that listed the personal info of each officer including family members and SSN’s. The county sued and a judge said the site was legal except for the SSN’s. 6 months later the website was taken down, apparently Mr. Disgruntled was getting tired of being pulled over for minor traffic offenses on a repeated basis.
IANAL but I’d think if listing the names and residences of criminals and their crimes is A-OK then I don’t see why a private citizen couldn’t list the name/residence of police officers. We are talking about public information here (in both cases of sex offender registries and a hypothetical police officer registry) that is just being organized in a more easily navigable manner.
I’ve always understood that to restrict speech because you feel it could lead to crime can only be done under very strict circumstances when said speech will directly and almost inevitably lead to a crime being committed. Which, to hit on another issue is why Pat Robertson’s famous calls to prayer against Judges aren’t illegal forms of speech.
Listing the names and residences of sex criminals and their crimes against children is “A-OK,” because it serves a valid public purpose: it warns parents of the potential danger to their children. Granted, it may also facilitate lawless actions against these listed individuals.
What’s the valid public purpose in listing the residences of police officers?
That said, I’m not sure the practice violates any particular law.
The system works. :rolleyes:.
He’s lucky he only managed to get himself harassed.
Sure, its legal to put their addresses online, but probably not a real bright idea.
Personally I’d rather live next to a registered sex offender than a cop. A registered sex offender served their time and was punished.
Try raising a kid and see how you feel about that.
Personally I’d rather people wouldn’t act on their prejudices. But evidently, we don’t always get what we want.
Well, I…Oh! We’re in GQ… Nevermind.
Honestly, you’re better off living next to a cop. Even better if you get to know them. Not only does the squad in the driveway keep things quiet, if you’re buds with a cop, they don’t care what you do, as long as you don’t bother them.
I will second that sentiment. I never charge cops for veterinary services. They tend to keep a closer eye on my property as a result, plus I have avoided a number of speeding tickets. “Oh, doc, it’s you. You were flying. Must be on your way to see an emergency. wink.”
That’s just wonderful for the rest of us who don’t have anything to offer to cops other than a smile and a nod when we recieve our $400 tickets. :dubious:
Then stop breaking the law. It’s really simple.