Of Publicity and Privacy: Who's Outing Whom?

The news media, the so-called "Fourth Estate," likes to pride itself in keeping the governing powers and the people honest.  Having been suckled on that pap since journalism school, many Fourth Estaters actually believe that they in fact perform such a function.

And if indeed they really did, then I would be their number one fan.

But, unfortunately, the Fourth Estate has long yielded its independence, and has, by and large, allowed itself to be an instrumentality of the corruptocrats in (and out of) government.

So who, then, is going to be the Fourth Estate to the Fourth Estate (or, in Juvenal's original phraseology from his Satires, "Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes?").

Sometimes, all it takes is one blogger to do that.

As part of the Newtown Sandy Hook Elementary hoplophobe gun-grabber media fest, the Journal-News, of White Plains, New York, has published an article about pistol permit holders, and, as an Internet companion piece, used the cyber mapping technologies to post an interactive map showing the names and locations of all pistol permit holders registered in Westchester and Rockland Counties (inasmuch as I have never lived in either of those two counties, you will not find my name there).

This has caused a big uproar.  Everyone is screaming about (A) privacy rights; and/or (B) now that the burglars know who has handguns, they know which houses to avoid -- and, by inference, which to target.

[This is assuming, of course, that those who are not registered pistol permit holders do not in fact have pistols.  On that score, I will humor the hoplophobes, but cannot in good conscience give 100% assurances to those in the burglary business that every non-registered residence they target is in fact devoid of munition/ammunition.].

But, as Christopher Fountain notes, sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.  Chris, of Greenwich, CT, has posted on his blog "For What It's Worth" a listing of the home addresses and contacts for the Journal-News publisher, editors, and reporters who were behind the articles.

It is going to be quite interesting to see how the Fourth Estate in White Plains deals with this one.  After all, they cannot now scream "invasion of privacy!" without being laughed out of town.

Not that Chris is invulnerable.  On his blog bio-line, Chris discloses that he is "a non-practicing lawyer and glad of it."  I'm wondering how long it will take the Journal-News to ask whether he is the same Christopher C. Fountain who, in 2000, had his 3-month suspension from the practice of law for forging a signature and notarization affirmed by the Appellate Court of Connecticut.  [Disclosure:  I am personally friendly with more than one ex-lawyer who has been slapped with harsher discipline than that.  Hate the sin but love the sinner!].

Privacy for Dummies

The case is captioned "People v. Kent," but a good alternative caption would be "Privacy for Dummies."

James D. Kent, then a Professor of Public Administration at an college in Dutchess County, New York [the judicial panel did not specifically name the college, but those of us who can put two and two together can easily figure out that it is Marist College], was convicted on various child pornography charges. The Appellate Division upheld his conviction.

Reading the facts of the case, Kent stored approximately 30,000 images of naked or nearly-naked young girls, age range approximately 8 - 9 years, in orderly folders and subfolders on the hard drive of the office computer. He complained to the College's info tech people when the computer malfunctioned, the college info techie found the stored images on the hard drive, and the matter was reported to the police.

In addition to the issues regarding the probative value of the forensic methods used by the police, Kent also claimed on appeal that his privacy rights were violated.

The Appellate Division wasn't caving in to such whining. The computer was Marist College's, not Kent's. He had no expectation of privacy on his employer's computer. And Kent seems to have forgotten that it was he who invited Marist College to take a look at his office computer.

The porno pervert is in the can until at least next August [New York State Inmate ID Number 09R3078]. I don't know which is more appalling, the guy's fascination with prepubescent females or his abject stupidity.

As for Marist College, it now has a very effective (if unofficial) policy against using College computers for pornographic purposes. The old maxim "Punish one, educate a thousand" (yes, I know that its origin is Mao) can ring very true. And in this case, it wasn't even Marist College that got stuck with administering the punishment!

Private Matter?

It seems that Rudy Giuliani's daughter got pinched for shoplifting after being caught on camera secreting more than $100 in make-up from a Sephora store in Manhattan.

There are two aspects to the news report that warrant commentary here.


A. "Store managers, after calling police, said they didn't want to press charges against her, [NYPD spokesperson Paul] Browne said. But police arrested her on a petty larceny charge, he said. … … The Manhattan district attorney's office had not decided whether to file formal charges against her, office spokeswoman Erin Duggan said."

Is Caroline Giuliani being accorded a special pass because she is Rudy Giuliani's daughter? It may well make good business sense to not press charges against her. For one thing, it takes up the manager's time to go to court as a witness. Moreover, so long as no charges are filed, everyone can come to an understanding whereby Caroline not only will never do it again, but may even pe persuaded to come back and spend her money at the store. If charges are filed, the store will forever lose a customer.

But is the same standard being applied to Caroline Giuliani as would be applied to anyone else's daughter who gets caught shoplifting cosmetics at Sephora?


B. "Her father, through a spokeswoman, said the case was a personal matter and asked the media to respect her privacy."

This time I beg to differ with Rudy! Criminal charges are, by definition, public causes of action. Unless and until Caroline is acquitted, or charges dropped, the public has an interest in the case.

Query: How much of a "private matter" were the criminal cases brought in the Southern District of New York when Rudolph Giuliani was serving as the United States Attorney there?


Quite frankly, I am of the sentiment that the criminal charges at issue are so petty and picayune and penny-ass that if the victim (the Sephora cosmetics store) is okay with letting them slip, then the government resources should not be burdened by the prosecution of the case. This is particularly so in light of the fact that Caroline Giuliani is apparently not a hardened criminal, and can be swiftly rehabilitated to return to her place as a law-abiding citizen in society (not to mention a spender of money to stimulate the sagging economy).

But the public needs reassurances that Caroline's case is not being spotted any special favors.

Orts & Ephemeris

Lots of things are going on now, so I am not postured to do any deep intellectual blogging -- at least for the next 24 hours. The following items and events have occurred, are occurring or are slated to occur:


A. A new law review article of mine has been published. Another article in a different law review is in its final editing stage and is slated for publication shortly. And a third article, not nearly as research-heavy as the two just mentioned, has been accepted for publication in a legal periodical, and is slated to appear within the next 2 months.


B. I have a court date tomorrow, and need to prep for that.


C. I have just completed administering my Final Exams. Well, almost. A greater than usual number of students didn't show up for the exams. Most of them contacted me in advance with their situations, and for these I have made or will make accommodation. Those who did not contact me in advance (and indeed, have yet to contact me) will receive a big, fat "zero" for their final exam grade. And they will go to the Department Chair and whine. But my Department Chair has almost always backed me up on this type of thing, and I would expect him to do likewise. After all, the syllabus handouts, distributed to everyone on the first day of class, explicitly lay down the rules about the need to contact the professor in advance if any accommodations are to be made for missed exams.

[This is a cultural value I picked up from my days with the Internal Revenue Service. Untimely tax returns are penalized, and extensions (at least the first one) are granted for the asking if requested before the due date. A similar world order is imposed upon my students.].

I think that the flu epidemic is playing at least some sort of role behind the higher numbers of absentees. But the rules are uneffected: Apprise the professor in advance that you are missing the exam, and reasonable accommodation can usually be made. Don't come to me after the next semester begins, as a few have been known to do, and for the first time tell me how sick you were! How long do you think you would last if you pulled that shtick with your gainful employment?

In any event, I am now grading the exams. I am going blazooey, so posting this is my much-needed break.


D. Speaking of Final Exams, our son has completed his, and is now moving his chattel goods from the dorms and back home. There goes the privacy my wife and I had enjoyed. Awshucks!!


E. Notwithstanding item D above, our son will be away with friends this coming Shabbat. Not to feel lonely, though. We have four houseguests slated to come over and visit, including our fatso friend, referred to as "He" in prior postings (here and here and here and here). As for the dining dynamic described more fully here, we will sort of be evenly matched: 3 fatsos and 3 non-fatsos (though the excessive adipose tissue on one of the guests counted in the "fatso" column has only been acquired relatively recently). We're looking forward to it.

The Obama Kvittel

This has not been an indolent summer for me. I have been quite involved in lots of activities with lots of deadlines, and have 2 out-of-town excursions slated for the next 4 weeks. It has, of course, distracted me from many leisure activities, including postings on this Blog.


It has been reported that Barack Hussein Obama placed a note in the Western Wall when he was in the Holy City of Jerusalem, and that the note was retrieved and given to an Israeli newspaper, which published its contents (and indeed, a photo image of it).

My take on it:


A. The news media reports perpetuate The Big Lie that the Western Wall is the holiest site in Judaism. This is incorrect! The Western Wall is NOT "the holiest site in Judaism." The holiest site in Judaism is the Foundation Stone, Mt. Moriah, currently in Muslim captivity beneath the Dome of the Rock (May we all live to see G-d restore it to us!).

B. It has become a popular practice to place personal notes to G-d in the recesses and nooks and crannies of the Western Wall. These written notes are popularly known in Yiddish as "kvitlach" ("kvittel" in the singular). I myself have not chosen to do the kvittel thing; I am quite content to direct my supplications and queries and protestations to G-d in my daily prayers [Though on one occasion, having misplaced the kvittel entrusted to me by a friend in America, I wrote my own kvittel that referred G-d to the lost kvittel, and requesting Him to grant the supplication of my friend.].

C. These kvitlach are, by their very nature, very personal communications. It is wrong (and contrary to Jewish law) to read other people's mail without their explicit permission; all the more so in the case of such a personal communication to G-d.

D. There are many, myself included, who believe that the publication of Barack Hussein Obama's kvittel was intentionally effected by Barack Hussein himself, in order to cash in the obvious political dividends. I am not sure whether the one who retrieved it and leaked it to the Israeli newspaper was directly engaged as a confederate, or whether Barack Hussein correctly guessed that some useful idiot would do his bidding for him. But Obama is too much of a political animal for me to believe that he hadn't considered the very, very strong possibility that his kvittel would somehow go public.

E. And so, the Israeli newspaper was party to a very grave unwarranted invasion of a person's privacy, and/ or it was an instrumentality in Obama's political machinations.

F. And just about every newspaper which reports the incident includes the text of the Obama Kvittel. Which is why this post has no hyperlinks to any of the stories: While I do not care to boost Obama's political capital, neither do I wish to invade his personal privacy if indeed the kvittel was sincere.