Posting someone's personal information is morally and ethically wrong — Page 3

What is there to understand? The situation speaks very plainly for itself. Michelle Malkin printed contact information for students released in a journalists-only press release and said it was the fault of the students for putting a link to the press release on their web page.

When asked by the students to take it down, she reposted the information.

Are you hung up on the fact that you're not sure if it's a conservative thing to do, to follow a web link and to post the information found there? Perhaps that's what's causing your stall? Because if it's a conservative thing to do, and you have certainly held up Michelle Malkin as one of your conservative heroes, then what does it become when the "seditious," "treasonous" students and other critics of the war did it to her?

It would certainly seem as if you are frozen and unable to say whether it is right or wrong for somebody to follow a link on a website and to repost the information that Michelle Malkin has articulated was clearly there to be seen by anybody who followed the link?

Why hold your tongue, Mr. Chanticleer?

---

Updated On: 9/10/06 at 07:49 PM

It's really something to watch Mr. Chanticleer dance his little sidestep.

"Michelle is working on something for this, and it should be good...

"When I understand the full story, I will gladly give a view. "

You see, he will give "a" view. He is not able to actually own any opinions that are not created and/or vetted by someone else. Mr. Chanticleer seems incable of writing "I will give my view." I don't understand why it is so difficult to go out on a limb and take a chance and say what one's feelings are about Michelle Malkin's publishing the contact information of people that she says were available by following a link on their wesbite. Mr. Chanticleer will wait until Michelle Malkin "works on something" and then, I guess we can assume he'll cut and paste that and maybe even add his own "What she said!" afterwards.

It would appear that Mr. Chanticller simply cannot do it. He can't just state his opinion "as is." A man who regularly insults people for their thoughts apparently can't even commit to one of his own.

---

Not without knowing all of the facts. It is not customary to respond to directives from colleagues.

Is this against the liberal code imposed by you and your posse as well?

Mr. Chanticleer, it would appear that you lack the courage of other people's convictions. Lord knows you've revealed yourself to have no convictions that have not been pre-written by others.

Not all people are "afraid to be wrong," gunn, however, it is no longer acceptable to admit mistakes, or to even consider that you might learn from them. Why just today, the vice president said on Meet The Press that if the administration had it to over again, they would deal with Iraq exactly the same way. This, it should be fairly obvious by now, is how Mr. Chanticleer views the world. What's puzzling is that with such a Black or White worldview he is unable to say categorically whether or not what Michelle Malkin did is right or wrong.

What is he afraid of doing if he commits himself one way or the other? How did he get so fearful?

---

Updated On: 9/10/06 at 10:11 PM

It would appear that one of your many problems with me is that you think I know too much of you. But that's neither here nor there.

Why are you afraid to state what your feelings are about Michelle Malkin publishing the information she did, republishing it, and then having someone turn around and do the same thing to her?

Why can't you do such a simple thing? You wouldn't happen to be a moral relativist, would you? Other than that, it really does appear as if you are waiting for your orders to come down before you are able to speak.

---

It has been nine (9) hours since this thread went up.

Certainly you've been able to "research" somebody's opinion that agrees with what you assume yours would be if you could only see it in somebody else's written word before you commit to it.

---

Is there actual evidence that Mr. Chanticleer is a bright guy? How bright must one be if one cuts and pastes one's opinions and it's only in those cuts and pastes that there are no spelling or grammar errors?

---

Abuse! Abuse! Name calling and false accusations...

eye, do you really care what his opinion might be at this point? He's been evasive throughout this thread and obviously doesn't want to give it. I say, forget it and move forward!

---

Updated On: 9/11/06 at 12:22 AM

When I think it took over nine hours to get a response from Mr. Chanticleer, I am reminded of George Bush's FEMA.

I am wondering if "Michelle" (first-name basis) ever worked that thing up. That thing that was going to be good.

---

Updated On: 9/11/06 at 09:35 AM

if the information was contained in a press release by the group, i see nothing wrong with her actions. she merely reposted information already made publicly available by the persons themselves.

---

"It's really something to watch Mr. Chanticleer dance his little sidestep."

I just started reading this thread and the song was the first thing that popped into my mind.

*ahem*

"Oooooo, I love to dance the little sidestep.
Now you see me, now you don't.
I've come and gone.

And oooooooo, I love to sweep around the widestep.
Cut a little swath
And lead the people on."

Thank you!

Chanti:

"It is legal, and fits generally within the purpose of her blog."

Really? Revealing the personal information of those who oppose her opinions "fits generally within the purpose of her blog"? Well, you reap what you sow...

And I find your signature fascinating:

"what free speech means to screeching liberals who have no tolerance for anyone else. WOW! What has modern liberalism done to itself?"

I've met many conservative pro-lifers who have no problem whatsoever using the Free Speech shield to their advantage when shoving posters of aborted fetuses in your face on the street. Or the Evangelists shouting hellfire and brimstone with microphones on busy corners. Or protesting funerals of gays or soldiers with signs saying, "They Deserved It". Those are definitely not liberals, yet they are doing exactly what you claim only liberals do (hiding behind "free speech" when villifying those they cannot tolerate). So what does "free speech" mean to a "screeching" conservative like yourself?

"Abuse! Abuse! Name calling and false accusations..."

Good grief....and Namo thought I was touchy! What did you do? Read your own signature and confuse it with something else? I call pot/kettle...

EDIT: I just read the part about the info being on the Press Release. It doesn't change her intentions, however. I don't think the students' reaction to post Michelle's personal info was right, either. They could have taken the high ground, but they chose to retaliate with vengeance. It is pretty stupid for those claiming their actions are to "end war". In this situation, the actions of both sides are repugnant.

---

Updated On: 9/11/06 at 12:23 PM

while i have no problem with her inital posting, i think she should have taken the high road and removed the information once they contacted her about the fact that they were receiving threats rather than reposting it. although, with the amount of threats and vitriol she receives on a daily basis she may have a different perspective on that issue than i do.

---