As Heather recently pointed out, Ms. Peterson is all upset that people are discussing publishing her personal information online. The principled position would be to say that it is a dirty practice to publish this data, regardless of who does it. However, Ms. Peterson is on record cheering along the CSGV's efforts to cyberstalk multiple individuals.
Her latest post tries to explain why it is ok to "keep track of" gun rights people, but why it is unacceptable to publish personal information for her and her allies:
I'm trying to extract some general principles from this to figure out how reasoning works in JoanLand. I suppose one could derive the following principles from her screed:
1) If an individual publishes under a real name rather than hiding under a pseudonym, then it is not acceptable to "out" the individual or publish further information as the individual is not hiding.2) If you feel that someone's words are ugly or hurtful, then you may ethically cyberstalk them and then publish their personal information.3) If you feel that someone is verbally attacking a victim then you may ethically cyberstalk them and then publish their personal information.
I personally disagree with ugly, vicious personal attacks. Vulgarity is the last refuge of the small-minded. And threats which rise to the level of stalking, harassment, or other criminal activity should be reported to the police.
However, I find Joan's guidelines for ethically cyberstalking people to fall way short. Let's face it: In Joan Peterson's perfect world, all gun owners would be licensed like sex offenders, preferably with the information available to the public. Heck, based on what her political allies believe, all people who disagree with their opinions should be treated as such. Based on those sorts of beliefs, I find her protestations to be a bit feeble.
In my opinion, if someone needs to be "kept track of" due to threatening or harassing behavior, then you should report them to the authorities. That might mean law enforcement, or it just might mean the administrators of whatever social media the interaction is occurring on. What CSGV is doing could be most charitably described as vigilantism. Gun owners who are informed on the gun rights issue tend to understand the difference between legitimate, ethical self-defense and vigilantism, but unsurprisingly, anti-gun bigots tend not to.