Sheriff Joe (Phoenix: designer, activities, dental)

[Greatday]

Originally Posted by kdog

If you're so concerned about people's rights, why aren't you concerned about Arpaio's privacy being violated by the NY Times?

The New Times, by publishing the address, has directly impacted the safety of Sheriff Arpaio's wife and other family members.

They (New Times) were so wrong in doing that -

[Bummer]

Originally Posted by Greatday

The New Times, by publishing the address, has directly impacted the safety of Sheriff Arpaio's wife and other family members.

They (New Times) were so wrong in doing that -

Great point, Greatday!

I'm not big on frequent and unwarranted lawsuits but this stunt definitely deserves a BIGGEE!

[kdog]

Originally Posted by joninaz

Why the hell does he want our IP addresses, records of what stoires, ads, sections we viewed, what other websites we visited, etc.?

See my previous response to Irwin. The reasonable explanation is that his lawyers simply want the web logs to tally a count of how many times the pages were viewed. Timestamps, IP addresses and the other information are standard fields in the web logs. It is pathologically paranoid to infer more nefarious motives behind the request.

[Steve-o]

Originally Posted by joninaz

For example, news outlets that write a negative story about his dept. get their access cut off. That's an insult to anyone who believes in the 1st Amendment.

Thats also his right. These news outlets should respect his requests. If they want to write negative about him, let them, thats their right. But if he disputes it, I feel he has the right to restrict them all he wants. Its not like they cant find another story to write about. He just doesnt want negative publicity. Who does?

[ibarrio]

some of the Article that is on the AZ Republic right now...Read for yourself.

The New Times subpoena originates from a series of articles published in 2004 and 2005. Underlying the subpoena is an allegation that the paper had published Arpaio's home address, which the County Attorney's Office alleges is a crime.

Moderator cut: do not repost copyrighted articles

[Greatday]

Originally Posted by ibarrio

some of the Article that is on the AZ Republic right now...Read for yourself.

The arrest was for a alleged criminal violation by those at the New Times -

[ibarrio]

And what...Joe gets and his cronies get a pass? Read the article...

[Greatday]

Originally Posted by ibarrio

And what...Joe gets and his cronies get a pass? Read the article...

I read the article - it is nothing more than a summary of the disputes over the last few years - no real new information

[irwin]

Originally Posted by kdog

See my previous response to Irwin. The reasonable explanation is that his lawyers simply want the web logs to tally a count of how many times the pages were viewed. Timestamps, IP addresses and the other information are standard fields in the web logs. It is pathologically paranoid to infer more nefarious motives behind the request.

NONSENSE!

They don't just want the number of views on that one story but they want ALL PEOPLE who have viewed the website in the past years AND the other websites those people have viewed. That is absolutely ridicules. PERIOD.

Quit defending this hick. This is now a national story and Phoenix is the laughing stock of the country for throwing journalists in jail for reporting on Joe.

[joninaz]

Originally Posted by Steve-o

Thats also his right. These news outlets should respect his requests. If they want to write negative about him, let them, thats their right. But if he disputes it, I feel he has the right to restrict them all he wants. Its not like they cant find another story to write about. He just doesnt want negative publicity. Who does?

That's his right? To deny media access? You are 100% wrong. He's a public figure in charge of a public agency which is supported by taxpayer money. I feel sorry for you if you think it's ok for public officials to hand pick who they'll allow access to public records.