I rather suspect that under the law such info is not deemed to be "public info" ...
To who ?
Only one: you'll be able to come up with an equally silly reply to this post, similar to the post to which I am replying ...
I need a load ...
Leave it to you to conflate the inevitable unintended consequences of an action by a State Legislature with someone who had nothing whatsoever to do with said action ...
If you don't like the law, seek to change the law ...
I can't change that law, I live in Michigan.
The point was that EVERYONE'S family SHOULD be as important as the next in the eyes of the law. Obama's should NOT get "special" treatment. He is JUST a public servant. No different than any other. ALL Men are created EQUAL and SHOULD be treated such under the law. My house, my family, EQUAL protection.
Putting that list in the paper was irresponsible and was intended to cause trouble and maybe invite harm. That is NOT what "rights" are for. When "rights" are exercised in a proper and responsible manner, ALL People's rights are protected and enhanced. This article did neither. It was NOT responsible journalism and was not meant to be.