Comment by anonymous908213 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by anonymous908213 | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

anonymous908213

> All protest is aimed at intimidating someone.

This isn't entirely true, but insofar as some protest is aimed at intimidation, protest should be aimed at intimidating the government as a whole, not a specific individual, unless perhaps that specific individual is the government as a whole, in which case they'll probably have tanks guarding their palace from unruly protestors and this discussion is moot.

> I'd absolutely support anyone protesting something I agree with

Even in a mob with 500 torches and pitchforks outside your family's house?

> There are no special rights given to "journalists" that aren't already given to all people. Journalists are just regular people and everyone has the freedom of the press.

This is correct in a technical sense but not really correct in a reality sense. Journalists are not privileged with legal rights, but they absolutely have many special social rights. Journalists are given access to places regular people would not be given access to all the time, and people are willing to talk to and divulge information to journalists that they would not be willing to give to random individuals. For an established journalist, it would be trivial to obtain a politician's address even if it were not public record. This social trust is earned by a record of professionalism.

> There are extremely few public servants being assassinated in their homes. There are far more cases of public servants killing innocent people.

The latter statement seems like a non-sequitur. It is true, but not really connected to the topic at hand. Knowing a politician's address doesn't stop them from killing people. It simply results in more total killing in the world, not less. We should strive to reduce all sources of senseless violence, and giving out politician's addresses is absolutely one of those sources.

> protest should be aimed at intimidating the government as a whole, not a specific individual

If I find out that a city councilman is accepting bribes or using public money for personal expenses, why should I protest "government as a whole" and not that one city councilman doing the bad thing? What is protesting government as a whole going to do about raising awareness of one person's corruption?

> Even in a mob with 500 torches and pitchforks outside your family's house?

Yes, provided there was a member of my family here who worked for the government who those people were peacefully protesting.

> For an established journalist, it would be trivial to obtain a politician's address even if it were not public record.

How exactly? Stalking? There are other ways, true, but those are available to anyone right? What way exists that is trivial for a journalist, but not trivial for anyone else?

If a government worker's address are already easy for anyone to find even if they aren't public record than what's the harm in them being public record anyway? (you could equally argue that if every government worker's address was trivial to find elsewhere there'd be no need to make them available in public records, but there are advantages to having a standardized process that works everywhere for everyone vs trying to find various other means until one works)

> Knowing a politician's address doesn't stop them from killing people.

It can pressure them to resign, or generate enough press and attention that they are removed from their position (voted out by the people for example), or just pressure them to do a better job so as not to outrage the people they're supposed to serve. Not every protest at someone's home turns into a murder.

> If I find out that a city councilman is accepting bribes or using public money for personal expenses, why should I protest "government as a whole" and not that one city councilman doing the bad thing? What is protesting government as a whole going to do about raising awareness of one person's corruption?

The government as a whole is responsible for dealing with the corruption of its subordinates. Here in Japan, we recently had a major corruption scandal that resulted in the resignation of PM Kishida in 2024. Kishida was not himself guilty, but nonetheless was made to take responsibility for overseeing the party which allowed this to happen. This is how it should be. For good governance to exist, the public must hold the government itself accountable such that the government is incentivized to root out corruption for its own survival.

> What way exists that is trivial for a journalist, but not trivial for anyone else?

Asking connections. They can make calls or send e-mails to people who would know, who will give them the information because they can trust the journalist, having an established professional career in journalism, will not use that information to attack the person at that address. It is much harder to trust a completely random person from the public with that information.

> It can pressure them to resign, or generate enough press and attention that they are removed from their position (voted out by the people for example), or just pressure them to do a better job so as not to outrage the people they're supposed to serve.

All of this can be accomplished without doing it at someone's home, and I don't believe doing it at their home increases the likelihood of it happening.

Just run the thought experiment of how an individual would rule the country if the people had no knowledge of their living situation and how they would rule the country if they did have knowledge of their living situation.

You know the answer in your gut

Reply on news.ycombinator.com