Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Contact Us | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS

Obstructing the public’s right to know

April 16, 2014

With very rare exceptions, everything our local and state governments do in West Virginia ought to be public knowledge....

« Back to Article

sort: oldest | newest




Apr-22-14 3:00 PM

TopGun; you 'assume' correctly!

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Apr-19-14 6:54 AM

Since there has been no response by the author, I must assume it's a one-sided issue to the person who wrote this article. The media is often jaded, especially when it's about their ability to collect information on people who do not agree with their philosophy. For some, it's not enough to simply disagree. They have to prod and pry, into something that isn't any of their business, especially when it's perfectly legal to carry a gun for personal defense.

These are the same people who support the murdering of innocent babies via an abortion law, and then acts appalled when a parent beats a child to death. Where do you draw the line on murder and morality? As journalist, you have a responsibility to your readers to use a little common sense when writing your articles. Putting a person's life at risk for the sake of journaliam is not acting in the best interest of your readers, nor is it the actions of a responsible person. You may want to think about that.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Apr-18-14 7:01 AM

To the author of this article. Whether you like it or not, you DO NOT have the right to endanger the lives of other people by publishing information that could put information in the hands of an assailant that could be used to harm another person. Your whole rant has been about a bill that would ban the papers from publishing the names of those who have concealed carry permits. This rant has been ongoing for several months, and it's the basis of all other rants you've posted in this paper pertaining to the public's right to know.

It's obvious you are a liberal, and an anti-gun individual, else your dander wouldn't be up over the bill. Since this sort of information could get someone killed, like a women who was abused by her husband. are you and this paper willing to take responsibility legally and financially, if that woman is killed by her X after YOU alerted him to the fact that she had obtained a permit to carry for her own protection? Are you?

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Apr-16-14 11:16 AM

It is not a stretch to see that some local governments (county & city)will use this ruling to make FOI Requests cost prohibitive. This is mirroring the Federal Government's recent actions of "stonewalling" requests for public records. Fast & Furious, now four years later and AG Holder continues to refuse turning over documents. Even "stonewalling" Congressional Committees requests. An excellent example is the IRS scandal. Now almost two years later, the committee(s) have been denied access and when threatened with subponea, the IRS director says it could take three years to find and supply the requested documents! Absolutely outrageous!

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 4 of 4 comments

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
Remember my email address.


I am looking for:
News, Blogs & Events Web