Sheriff Joe (Phoenix, Maricopa: attorney, income, job)

[Arizona Annie]

Originally Posted by Artliquide

Wow. I'm actually suprised by that. I still don't think that anyone's address should be publicly displayed, ethically, even if it is available to the public, since I doubt that many people who read the New Times would actually look it up. But, if it's an act of solidarity to protect the freedom of the press, that's great.

Artliquide ~ I somewhat agree. I don't know what was meant by "Maricopa County's own Web sites publishes it" from the quoted link in your post of which you were responding, because it's certainly not on MCSO's web site. If it's been published now by the Arizona Republic that is very unfortunate. Back to the New Times....Whether it's illegal or not, it's unethical, I don't believe a media source should publish articles inciting hatred and include the address of the public official who they have been riling up their readers to hate. It doesn't surprise me at all what has come of their actions (the death threats) because the weak minded people (Now don't think I am calling all readers of the New Times paper weak mnded, because I am NOT), will think the paper is telling them to take action, especially when they publish his address. I really see no defense for this. Not even freedom of the press. What's next, putting in an add for a free firearm? Or maybe an article on how to carry through on a threat? The special prosecutor may have gone the wrong route to punish those responsible, but IMO they were just in believing something should be done.

Ibarrio ~ I know you disagree with me, but could you just give your opinion if you respond to my post and not continue to insult me? I will not report you for your personal attacks (I suspect that is why the moderators aren't getting involved) because I believe you are expressing your opinion, even in your comments about me, but I would appreciate it if you could just take a break from insults and stick to your opinions of the issues being debated.

[Arizona Annie]

Originally Posted by Artliquide

So was I when I was reading this part of the argument. Like I said...semantics maybe?

For (like you said) that part of the argument, it probably is just semantics. I think in the discussion on what guilty does or does not mean, opinions can vary wildly with how something is said or perceived, and sometimes mean the same thing when you get down to brass tacks.

Originally Posted by Artliquide

Maybe I'm too optimistic, but I think that most people know that the law is fallible.

I would hope so. I think history has proven that. Just because you are pronounced "not guilty", doesn't mean you are innocent. On the flip side...just because you are pronounced "guilty" doesn't mean you are not innocent either. There are innocent people coming out of prison because of new evidence all the time, especially with DNA evidence.

[Bummer]

Originally Posted by Arizona Annie

I would hope so. I think history has proven that. Just because you are pronounced "not guilty", doesn't mean you are innocent. On the flip side...just because you are pronounced "guilty" doesn't mean you are not innocent either. There are innocent people coming out of prison because of new evidence all the time, especially with DNA evidence.

Absolutely, Arizona Annie . . . remember the famous O.J. Simpson?

He is a "poster child" for your statement!

[Arizona Annie]

Originally Posted by Bummer

Absolutely, Arizona Annie . . . remember the famous O.J. Simpson?

He is a "poster child" for your statement!

I know. Both aj661 and I have mentioned him.

[Arizona Annie]

Originally Posted by Artliquide

I don't read the AZ Republic any more than I watch Fox News. But I'm a little proud of them for sticking their necks out a little.

I'm not, to be honest. I really think public officials (especially officers of any kind) should be safe from the media publishing their addresses. I think something should be done about the New Times publishing it, as a warning to all media not to cross that line again. If the Arizona Republic published it as well, they can deal with both at the same time.

But as for the Phoenix New Times publishing the Grand Jury subpoena, I can understand their wanting to warn the public and the public being glad they were warned. I think it was very gutsy for the two owners of the New Times to publish the subpoena and I believe that action (in its own way) was more an act of civil disobedience. I realize publishing a Grand Jury subpoena is illegal and for that reason, they probably should not have printed it, but I can understand why they did so. I can understand why they notified their readers what the special prosecuter was requesting in order to make his case against the New Times owners. I just wish they could have done it a different way or maybe made the case it was over the top to request such information without publishing the sensitive document. Maybe it was a move to get public support before the prosecution went any farther. Maybe they didn't have the luxury of time and it was the only way they could keep from handing over the information. As I have said many times before, I think gathering such information is a privacy invasion and akin to spying.

IMHO, I think it is a mistake to think because the County Attorney fired the special prosecutor because of the way he was handling the prosecution (basically a direct result of the subpeona), that it means the paper was released of all guilt regarding the publishing of the address. Just my opinion.

I don't know if you agree with any or all of that. But I do know we have been able to disagree on subjects before and still have an amiable debate, respecting each other's opinion, which is why I put my thoughts in a post to you. Your turn.
AA

[Artliquide]

Originally Posted by Arizona Annie

I'm not, to be honest. I really think public officials (especially officers of any kind) should be safe from the media publishing their addresses. I think something should be done about the New Times publishing it, as a warning to all media not to cross that line again. If the Arizona Republic published it as well, they can deal with both at the same time.

But as for the Phoenix New Times publishing the Grand Jury subpoena, I can understand their wanting to warn the public and the public being glad they were warned. I think it was very gutsy for the two owners of the New Times to publish the subpoena and I believe that action (in its own way) was more an act of civil disobedience. I realize publishing a Grand Jury subpoena is illegal and for that reason, they probably should not have printed it, but I can understand why they did so. I can understand why they notified their readers what the special prosecuter was requesting in order to make his case against the New Times owners. I just wish they could have done it a different way or maybe made the case it was over the top to request such information without publishing the sensitive document. Maybe it was a move to get public support before the prosecution went any farther. Maybe they didn't have the luxury of time and it was the only way they could keep from handing over the information. As I have said many times before, I think gathering such information is a privacy invasion and akin to spying.

IMHO, I think it is a mistake to think because the County Attorney fired the special prosecutor because of the way he was handling the prosecution (basically a direct result of the subpeona), that it means the paper was released of all guilt regarding the publishing of the address. Just my opinion.

I don't know if you agree with any or all of that. But I do know we have been able to disagree on subjects before and still have an amiable debate, respecting each other's opinion, which is why I put my thoughts in a post to you. Your turn.
AA

I agree with you that the original action was wrong, but my stance on freedom of the press is that it's sacred. How many publications can we really trust for accurate news reporting? Few, and that's mainly because, in my opinion, money talks and politicians and corps have a hand in what's reported and what's shoved under the rug. My personal method of information gathering involves gathering as much info as possible from as many sources as possible, acknowledging that much of the information is probably incorrect. But, that I have access to all that information makes the difference because then I can analyze what I read and decide for myself what seems to be the truth. I think that's an important part of living in a free society, which I think is why freedom of the press is protected under our constitution. The other extreme is places like China, where people get arrested for trying to access information other than what the government allows them to see.

So, because I really love to be an informed citizen (because I can't stand the thought of voting along party lines just because, or any other thoughtless citizenship action), I put the idea of a free press before individual rights, not that I don't strongly believe that individual rights need to be preserved as well. But, if it's an isolated case regarding an individual, I would say that freedom of the press, which affects many more people is more important in the global sense.

On the other hand, I could say that it doesn't have to be an "either, or" situation. Both actions are wrong. But Joe still has more direct political power than the New Times, so I might be more in favor of curbing his desire to exert that power, than I would be to curb the New Times' power.

But that's just my view.

[Arizona Annie]

Originally Posted by Artliquide

I agree with you that the original action was wrong, but my stance on freedom of the press is that it's sacred. How many publications can we really trust for accurate news reporting? Few, and that's mainly because, in my opinion, money talks and politicians and corps have a hand in what's reported and what's shoved under the rug. My personal method of information gathering involves gathering as much info as possible from as many sources as possible, acknowledging that much of the information is probably incorrect. But, that I have access to all that information makes the difference because then I can analyze what I read and decide for myself what seems to be the truth. I think that's an important part of living in a free society, which I think is why freedom of the press is protected under our constitution. The other extreme is places like China, where people get arrested for trying to access information other than what the government allows them to see.

So, because I really love to be an informed citizen (because I can't stand the thought of voting along party lines just because, or any other thoughtless citizenship action), I put the idea of a free press before individual rights, not that I don't strongly believe that individual rights need to be preserved as well. But, if it's an isolated case regarding an individual, I would say that freedom of the press, which affects many more people is more important in the global sense.

On the other hand, I could say that it doesn't have to be an "either, or" situation. Both actions are wrong. But Joe still has more direct political power than the New Times, so I might be more in favor of curbing his desire to exert that power, than I would be to curb the New Times' power.

But that's just my view.

Well, I did type out a well thought out reply and then promptly lost it. Basically this will be the short version. It was probably way too long winded anyway!

I understand what you are saying. We have different viewpoints on this subject. I strongly believe in this case the safety of a public official and his family trumps my right to know. Although I feel strongly about freedom of press, I question why we needed to know the address of a public official whose job already puts him in danger without the media publishing his personal information. If I could think of any possible reason why we would need to know this information, then I could probably consider it freedom of press. For the life of me, I cannot think of any valid reason. Freedom of press does not give the media the right to be irresponsible.

Granted the Sheriffs information was not published recently, but now AZ Central and 12 News have published County Attorney Andrew Thomas' address and children's names on their websites, reportedly to prove if someone researches enough they could find it themselves, just like they could find Sheriff Joe's. They have now made it easy for unstable individuals (who probably wouldn't have had the resources like those of the news media) to find him and his family as well. What about the innocent children who must now have protection and fear for their lives?
Source:
http://www.maricopacountyattorney.or...20071023_a.pdf

Both of these individuals have received credible death threats. It is a serious matter. These people who protect and serve our communities are targets, they (the media) have just put very large targets on their homes. Do they not deserve a safe haven?

Some things the sheriff has done I agree with, some I don't. He has done things because we have demanded action when others at his level have done nothing but bow to political influence. This makes him very unpopular with some very influential people and some very unstable ones.

Just my opinion.

[travelintom]

Arpaio is the perfect demagogue. Sadly, he appeals to the baser instincts and xenophobia of the majority. I think it was Madison that argued for a "representative" democracy stating that "The people is a monster".

It saddens me in my foreign travels at how low the world's esteem for the US has fallen. I've met many travelers who lie and tell folk they are Canadians. We repeatedly reelect "leaders" like Arpaio, Nixon and George W. My idealism has died; I mope in bitter resignation to mob rule.

The top 1% make 22% of our nation's income while the lower 50% make 15%. Our distribution of wealth is more imbalanced than any industrialized nation. The dollar is in the pits and we have mortgaged our national debt to China. More of our population is imprisoned than any other country. Our infant mortality rate is third-world. All this (and much more) while our national passion and outrage is misdirected to undocumented workers? Build bridges, not walls!

[ibarrio]

Sheriff Joe is taking this to a new low...What a waste of resources going after these guys....not for the people of Maricopa County but for himself...

Az Republic

The Maricopa County Sheriff's Office has cited Phoenix New Times reporter Ray Stern for disorderly conduct.

His crime: Taking pictures of records that the county wanted to charge him 50 cents a page to copy.

But the timing of Stern's citation is hard to ignore. It came the same night that sheriff's deputies arrested two other New Times employees for publishing information from a grand jury subpoena that, among other things, demanded the Internet activities of anyone who looked at the newspaper's Web site in three years.

The next day, on Friday, Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas decried the arrests and the subpoena as an assault on the First Amendment. Much chagrined, Thomas dismissed the case and fired the special prosecutor he had appointed to investigate whether New Times violated the law by publishing Sheriff Joe Arpaio's address three years ago.

That leaves only Stern and his camera facing accusations of criminal conduct. It appears that when a law clerk asked him to stop taking pictures of the documents, Stern had the temerity to ask, “Why?”

[sindey]

Originally Posted by travelintom

Arpaio is the perfect demagogue. Sadly, he appeals to the baser instincts and xenophobia of the majority. I think it was Madison that argued for a "representative" democracy stating that "The people is a monster".

It saddens me in my foreign travels at how low the world's esteem for the US has fallen. I've met many travelers who lie and tell folk they are Canadians. We repeatedly reelect "leaders" like Arpaio, Nixon and George W. My idealism has died; I mope in bitter resignation to mob rule.

The top 1% make 22% of our nation's income while the lower 50% make 15%. Our distribution of wealth is more imbalanced than any industrialized nation. The dollar is in the pits and we have mortgaged our national debt to China. More of our population is imprisoned than any other country. Our infant mortality rate is third-world. All this (and much more) while our national passion and outrage is misdirected to undocumented workers? Build bridges, not walls!

I couldn't have said it better. Thank You