Sometimes public safety outweighs a person's privacy. When someone puts the lives of others in danger, we should know what happened in order to better protect ourselves. The State News Board of Directors reached a unanimous decision Friday to appeal the Ingham County Circuit Court's decision that allowed MSU police to withhold the police report from an alleged Feb. 23 assault in Hubbard Hall.

The decision to withhold the requested incident reports from the newspaper, made by Ingham County Circuit Court Judge Joyce Draganchuk on June 8, was based on privacy. Draganchuk said releasing the report would not contribute to the public's understanding of the case, but it would intrude on the privacy of those involved.

Several of the people the judge meant to protect, however, testified or were named in testimony Friday during the preliminary examinations of two men charged in connection with the alleged Feb. 23 assault.

Draganchuk and MSU's reasoning, that protecting the privacy of those involved, is paramount in this situation, lost substantial footing during Friday's proceedings. Through testimony in court, which is a public forum, the names and a partial narrative of events — things Draganchuk ruled were private — became public information.

With names, ages and renditions of what happened we have part of the story. But why couldn't we have this information back when people's safety was more immediate?

At this point, appealing Draganchuk's ruling that MSU doesn't have to give the incident reports to The State News is a matter of principle.

If we let the university keep details that affect the safety of students private, we wouldn't be doing our job. By appealing this case, we're taking on a larger issue. It is about more than just what happened on Feb. 23. Now, it's about making sure our university doesn't stand between public information and the people who have a right to it.

Public information should be accessible to everybody — that's why Michigan has a Freedom of Information Act. By ruling that the university can regulate the flow of such information, Draganchuk has sent the message that the public's right to information — and by extension, public safety — is something a newspaper, or anyone for that matter, shouldn't be concerned with.

As more details about the alleged assault become public throughout the court case, the stance of the university and Draganchuk becomes less valid. Privacy is not the issue here — safety and your right to know is.