The N.J. intermediate appellate court held such publication wasn’t protected by the First Amendment law; the state high court just agreed to reconsider that. The question presented is,
Is Daniel’s Law, N.J.S.A. 56:8-166.1 and N.J.S.A. 2C:20-31.1, which prohibits disclosing the home addresses of certain public officials, including judges, prosecutors, and law enforcement personnel, unconstitutional as applied to plaintiff?
Here’s an excerpt of the lower court opinion, Kratovil v. City of New Brunswick:
How much more Animal Farm could we get?
“All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others”
Whatever rains on them is just “collateral consequences” of the fine job they do.
I smell the unmistakable stretch of hypocricy brewing. Too early to nail down exactly how this will look, but not too early to see it coming.
What is the basis for prohibiting these disclosures via “Daniel’s Law”, and how does it not apply to the ML website?
My guess is that these questions will not even be considered with regards to the ML Website, regardless of anything that happens in this case. If this disclosure is prohibited, any attempt to apply the basis for that decision to the ML Website will be summarily dismissed by the State, and the Judiciary.
This decision contains arguments that could support a finding that states cannot publish the names, addresses and photos of registrants on the internet.