If I had a nickel for every time I heard something to the affect of “Did you see that comment I left you on [insert social networking site here]?”, I’d be cruising my speedboat around the Lake of the Ozarks without a care in the world, thinking about the riches in my Swiss bank account.
Indeed, it seems that social online networking sites like MySpace and Facebook are here to stay (much like the Internet revolution that spawned them). And the chief opposition I have to these types of sites if that of a false notion of privacy. As I alluded to in my previous blog, in my opinion nothing (and I mean NOTHING) on the Internet is private [#1]. That being said, this false sense of privacy enjoyed by those who use networking sites will actually be detrimental to that individual in the long run. First, I will examine the notion of privacy in a historical sense. Then I will take that Constitutional verification and apply it to the modern day musings of Internet privacy (or lack thereof). While individuals of all ages can and do use social networking sites, for the purposes of this dissertation I will concentrate on the affects of Internet privacy on high school and college-aged adolescents.
Two well known cases concerning privacy and the First Amendment support my viewpoint. The first is Michael A. Smyth v. The Pillsbury Company (Pennsylvania, 1996) [#2]. In those proceedings, the court ruled that provocative and aggressive e-mails [#3] sent by an employee (Smyth) of the Pillsbury Company to his supervisor were not considered private. Thus, the Smyth’s termination from the company as a result of those e-mails was justified. Smyth argued the intrusion of privacy tort [#4, see the intrusion section], arguing that Pennsylvania common law prohibits the termination of an employee “in violation to the employee’s right to privacy.” He also makes the point that the supervisor with whom he was conversing with assured him that their communication on the e-mail medium was indeed private.
However, the court decreed that the e-mail system maintained by the Pillsbury Company does not come with an expectation of privacy. Moreover, Smyth voluntarily professed his opinions (as opposed to the company seeking out to find his information) and thus cannot contend that his privacy was intruded upon. In fact, Pillsbury’s desire to keep such “unprofessional and inappropriate comments or even illegal activity” off their e-mail server trumps Smyth’s supposed confidentiality.
The second landmark case that ties in with this subject is Tonya Barnhart v. Paisano Publications (Maryland, 2006) [#5]. While this case does not involve an electronic medium, it nonetheless lends itself to an attitude of cautiousness when it comes to online networking sites. In the proceedings, Tonya Barnhart sued Easyriders magazine [#6] after they published a topless photo of her without her consent. Barnahrt alleged the privacy torts of false light and appropriation [#4, see the false light and appropriation sections], claiming that the photo “distorted her true appearance.” In general, Barnhart is not the type of person that goes around exposing herself for kicks.
Yet again, however, the court disagreed. They first pointed out that Batrnhart’s exposure occurred in a clearly public place and manner and thus could not be considered private. In regards to appropriation, the court ruled that “no one has the right to object merely because his name or his appearance is brought before the public.” Consequently, publications (such as a newspaper or Easyriders magazine) are not predisposed to account for every name or likeness it publishes.
How do these cases tie in to sites like MySpace and Facebook? Simply put, personal information posted online is in no way private and the poster call fall victim to a plethora of woes because of it. The Smyth v. Pillsbury case is a striking example of just that. And while the Barnhart v. Paisano case was not in the digital realm, its lessons about photographs still hold true. If unflattering information (specifically, photos of illegal activities) surfaces on the Internet, the decisions of potential employers of that person will most likely be swayed to the negative side [#7]. What is more, tech gurus are pioneering ways to take “digital snapshots” of items that were once on someone’s personal page. So Facebookers beware: something you delete could still come back to haunt you.
And what I personally believe to be the most prevalent “trap” of social networking sites is that one’s susceptibility to online predators is greatly at risk [#8]. Let’s take a MySpace page of a friend of mine (whose name or URL I will not reveal for her protection) and calculate just how much she is at risk. While she never states personal information such as her name, address, and phone number, she does
state the name of her High School, which narrows her identity from thousands of teenage girls to about 200.
state her High School class, which narrows the number from 200 to about 40.
state that she is a Varsity basketball player, which cuts the number from 40 to about five.
Combine this with the fact that she posts pictures of herself of her page and it is painfully obvious how at risk she is to be accosted by a predator.
Show this blog to teenagers who live by MySpace and Facebook and they will tell you that there are filters and safeguards in place that allow only certain people to view their personal information. To that I respond by asking: how much do you really trust those “certain people”? What’s to say they don’t take what they see and post it elsewhere for the masses to scrutinize? Or on a simpler premise…what’s to say they don’t share the information they see right then and there with anyone in their general vicinity?
To all these points I say again what I’ve already heartily stated earlier in this blog: Nothing is private on the Internet; so take great heed when typing to your heart’s content. Otherwise the reputation ruined may be your own.
#1: http://tditman.blogspot.com/2007/10/blog-4-102507-this-blog-is-not.html
#2: http://www.loundy.com/CASES/Smyth_v_Pillsbury.html
#3: Smyth threatened to, in reference to some fellow employees in the sales management division, “kill the backstabbing bastards” and called a company party the “Jim Jones Koolaid affair.” For an explanation of the latter threat, see http://www.religioustolerance.org/dc_jones.htm
#4: http://www.cas.okstate.edu/jb/faculty/senat/jb3163/privacytorts.html
#5: http://www.mdd.uscourts.gov/publications/opinions/Opinions/barnhartopinion.17oct06.pdf
#6: http://www.easyriders.com/about/
#7: http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/166287/potential_employers_and_myspace_use.html
#8: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11165576
Thursday, October 25, 2007
Thursday, October 18, 2007
Blog #4 102507 - “This blog is (not) anonymous”
With the Internet revolution opening more avenues than ever for expression, the tendency to express oneself anonymously is on the rise. While anonymity may have been crucial in previous eras in order to avoid physical and emotional persecution, I believe anonymity today should be greatly reduced. Doing so will not only increase accountability and reliability in one’s speech, but also promote healthy and productive speech that is not emotionally detrimental to the receiver.
I do wholeheartedly agree that anonymous speech, whether on the Internet or some other medium, is fully protected by historical evidence. Talley v. California (1960) established that the scope of the First Amendment protects anonymity. In fact, the opinion of the court stressed that the Framers intended for anonymity to be protected [#1]. One who sides with this viewpoint would probably contend that anonymous speech is no different than any other type in that in contributes to the marketplace of ideas. However, I tend to err on the side of morality when it comes to situations like this one.
One may also make the argument that anonymity in speech acts a safeguard from retaliation to those who oppose the speech at hand. To that I respond by pointing out that while those consequences may have been exorbitant in the past, we live in a new day and age where one has the right to express him or herself however they want (that is, in accordance with the First Amendment) and not face persecution. It is safe to say that no one in the year 2007 will suffer the same fate as John Lilburne [#2] if their speech is controversial.
And moreover, I personally believe that if you take the time to express your opinions, you should possess the fortitude to stand up to any criticism you may encounter. “Take it like a man,” as they say. Furthermore, to me anonymity shows a lack of pride of authorship. There is no incentive to craft speech according to the standards ethics and accuracy (not to mention grammar). Which begs the question…if you have no pride in your own speech, is the expression really worth it?
A continued abuse of anonymity will only lead to more cowardly remarks. I shudder to myself every time I view a sports message board online and see grown men harshly criticizing middle school athletes over their performance. Not only are those people not accountable for their hateful words, but the detrimental affect the speech has on its receiver, depending on how it is received, could be catastrophic. The National Crime Prevention Council has launched an anti-cybeybullying campaign to combat this sort of thing, which I applaud [#3-5].
Others also stress that anonymous speech proves a realm of privacy which is completely independent of the “shield from retaliation” argument. Anyone with basic computer knowledge can tell you that this really can’t be absolute. Whether through subpoena or just plain Internet sleuthing, one’s identity can easily be revealed. And even if the medium is not electronic (i.e. publishing books or pamphlets under a pseudonym), the fact that the technological revolution brings with it a seemingly endless amount of ways to access an always-growing database of knowledge, one’s identity once again is just a few mouse clicks away from disclosure.
So you must be wondering now: what does this crazy blogger exactly suggest as an alternative for anonymity? Do I think that every piece of expression should be required to display the author’s name, contact information, religious affiliation, and favorite flavor of yogurt? No, I do not. Not only is that notion absurd, but also quite the inconvenience.
Instead, I turn to the recent insights of columnist Sascha Segan in the November 6th, 2007, edition of PC Magazine [#6]. As he puts it, “[anonymity] lets people release the worst in themselves through trolling and online fraud, and disconnects people from a reality where you’re held accountable for the stupid things you say.” He goes on to propose that each and every individual ought to be honest and straightforward in their speech, unless they “truly have a need for it.” This is a very poignant point. In one of my previous blogs, I articulate that there ought to be definite line separating “the people’s right to know” and information that ought to be kept away from the public for their own good [#7]. For that reason, I can see the need for a modern day Deep Throat (as Segan puts it); but only in rare cases.
This solution seems apt. But let’s face it: we can’t force anyone and everyone to give up their precious anonymity. Americans are stubborn like that. That’s why I couldn’t help but chuckle at one of Segan’s alternatives. He proposes that we create an “internet ghetto,” where the obdurate ones can troll to their heart’s content. While Segan poses this satirically, I think it’s quite the idea. There’s already enough of this “sludge” on the Internet. Why not corral in into a specific area? At least then, the average receiver would know if they are taking in speech that is accountable, credible, and from an author who takes pride in contributing to his speech to the marketplace of ideas.
#1: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=362&invol=60
#2: http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/STUlilburne.htm
#3: http://www.ncpc.org/cyberbullying
#4: http://youtube.com/watch?v=QYaWNYXpBis
#5: http://youtube.com/watch?v=seOQyMvG99w
#6: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,2193392,00.asp
#7: http://tditman.blogspot.com/2007/10/blog-2-100907-summer-of-sin.html
I do wholeheartedly agree that anonymous speech, whether on the Internet or some other medium, is fully protected by historical evidence. Talley v. California (1960) established that the scope of the First Amendment protects anonymity. In fact, the opinion of the court stressed that the Framers intended for anonymity to be protected [#1]. One who sides with this viewpoint would probably contend that anonymous speech is no different than any other type in that in contributes to the marketplace of ideas. However, I tend to err on the side of morality when it comes to situations like this one.
One may also make the argument that anonymity in speech acts a safeguard from retaliation to those who oppose the speech at hand. To that I respond by pointing out that while those consequences may have been exorbitant in the past, we live in a new day and age where one has the right to express him or herself however they want (that is, in accordance with the First Amendment) and not face persecution. It is safe to say that no one in the year 2007 will suffer the same fate as John Lilburne [#2] if their speech is controversial.
And moreover, I personally believe that if you take the time to express your opinions, you should possess the fortitude to stand up to any criticism you may encounter. “Take it like a man,” as they say. Furthermore, to me anonymity shows a lack of pride of authorship. There is no incentive to craft speech according to the standards ethics and accuracy (not to mention grammar). Which begs the question…if you have no pride in your own speech, is the expression really worth it?
A continued abuse of anonymity will only lead to more cowardly remarks. I shudder to myself every time I view a sports message board online and see grown men harshly criticizing middle school athletes over their performance. Not only are those people not accountable for their hateful words, but the detrimental affect the speech has on its receiver, depending on how it is received, could be catastrophic. The National Crime Prevention Council has launched an anti-cybeybullying campaign to combat this sort of thing, which I applaud [#3-5].
Others also stress that anonymous speech proves a realm of privacy which is completely independent of the “shield from retaliation” argument. Anyone with basic computer knowledge can tell you that this really can’t be absolute. Whether through subpoena or just plain Internet sleuthing, one’s identity can easily be revealed. And even if the medium is not electronic (i.e. publishing books or pamphlets under a pseudonym), the fact that the technological revolution brings with it a seemingly endless amount of ways to access an always-growing database of knowledge, one’s identity once again is just a few mouse clicks away from disclosure.
So you must be wondering now: what does this crazy blogger exactly suggest as an alternative for anonymity? Do I think that every piece of expression should be required to display the author’s name, contact information, religious affiliation, and favorite flavor of yogurt? No, I do not. Not only is that notion absurd, but also quite the inconvenience.
Instead, I turn to the recent insights of columnist Sascha Segan in the November 6th, 2007, edition of PC Magazine [#6]. As he puts it, “[anonymity] lets people release the worst in themselves through trolling and online fraud, and disconnects people from a reality where you’re held accountable for the stupid things you say.” He goes on to propose that each and every individual ought to be honest and straightforward in their speech, unless they “truly have a need for it.” This is a very poignant point. In one of my previous blogs, I articulate that there ought to be definite line separating “the people’s right to know” and information that ought to be kept away from the public for their own good [#7]. For that reason, I can see the need for a modern day Deep Throat (as Segan puts it); but only in rare cases.
This solution seems apt. But let’s face it: we can’t force anyone and everyone to give up their precious anonymity. Americans are stubborn like that. That’s why I couldn’t help but chuckle at one of Segan’s alternatives. He proposes that we create an “internet ghetto,” where the obdurate ones can troll to their heart’s content. While Segan poses this satirically, I think it’s quite the idea. There’s already enough of this “sludge” on the Internet. Why not corral in into a specific area? At least then, the average receiver would know if they are taking in speech that is accountable, credible, and from an author who takes pride in contributing to his speech to the marketplace of ideas.
#1: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=362&invol=60
#2: http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/STUlilburne.htm
#3: http://www.ncpc.org/cyberbullying
#4: http://youtube.com/watch?v=QYaWNYXpBis
#5: http://youtube.com/watch?v=seOQyMvG99w
#6: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,2193392,00.asp
#7: http://tditman.blogspot.com/2007/10/blog-2-100907-summer-of-sin.html
Friday, October 12, 2007
Blog #3 101807 - “Nappy-headed hos”
On April 4th, 2007, radio personality Don Imus made some disparaging remarks about the Rutgers University Women’s Basketball team on his radio program, Imus in the Morning. He was thereafter suspended, his show cancelled, and threatened with a lawsuit over the controversial comments. I concur with these actions. Not only were Imus’ comments perverse and unkind, but historical evidence also justifies the actions taken against him.
At the time of the incident, Imus and his executive producer Bernard McGuirk were discussing the NCAA Women's Basketball Championship game between the Rutgers University Scarlet Knights and the University of Tennessee Lady Volunteers. A brief transcript of the conversation is as follows:
IMUS: That's some rough girls from Rutgers. Man, they got tattoos and --
McGUIRK: Some hard-core hos.
IMUS: That's some nappy-headed hos there. I'm gonna tell you that now, man, that's some -- woo. And the girls from Tennessee, they all look cute, you know, so, like -- kinda like -- I don't know.
McGUIRK: A Spike Lee thing.
IMUS: Yeah.
McGUIRK: The Jigaboos vs. the Wannabes -- that movie that he had. [#1]
[NOTE: for clarification purposes, I offer the following from dictionary.com:
nappy (adj.)
"downy," 1499, from nap (n.). Meaning "fuzzy, kinky," used in colloquial or derogatory ref. to the hair of black people, is from 1950. ]
Two days later, amidst many prominent media figures calling for his firing [#2], Imus issued a formal apology on his radio program [#3]. However, that appeared to be too little, too late, as one week later, MSNBC announced that it would no longer broadcast Imus in the Morning, and the next day CBS fired Imus and cancelled the show altogether [#4].
It has been established in the courts that speech that carries a captive audience is one of three types that are unprotected under the First Amendment. This neoliberal guideline came into being as a result of the Federal Communications Commission v. Pacifica Foundation case from 1978 [#5]. In that case, the court ruled that the broadcast medium (i.e. radio, television) fell under the realm of captive audience in that once one accessed the material, there was no plausible way to avoid receiving it (This is opposed to a medium that does not possess captive audience, such as the Internet, where one must make a conscious choice to receive content). Thus, speech on the broadcast medium can be regulated.
While Imus’ speech was indeed not regulated on a “live” basis like one thinks of censorship on television today, in my opinion, his ensuing reprimand was justified and a regulation in its own right. Now, I would be remiss if I didn’t present the Constitutional evidence that promotes Imus’ reference to the hos of the nappy-headed variety. Yes, his words did not fall into either of the other two categories of unprotected speech: They did not create an immediate threat to violence (fighting words), nor can the word “ho” be defined as obscene in comparison to Cohen v. California (1971), where the word “fuck” was deemed permissible as protected expression [#6]. And if you don’t buy the Cohen argument, look no further that the multiple explicit uses of “ho” in today’s entertainment spectrum [#7-9].
On a broader sense, one can even go so far as to say that Imus’ words contributed to the marketplace of ideas advocated by the First Amendment. In this blogger’s opinion, however, all that falls short to the point I made above. That is, Don Imus operated on a medium that had captive audience, and thus, he must pay the price for his actions.
One does not even have to gaze that far back to come across another broadcast controversy with similar circumstances and the same outcome. On May 8th, 2006, DJ Star (real name Troi Torain) of Hot 97 FM in New York City made explicit comments on air about the four year old daughter of a rival DJ. He elaborated that he would like to sexually violate the young girl as well as urged listeners to provide personal information about her for his personal use. Two days later…you guessed it…Star was terminated by Clear Channel Radio [#10].
The First Amendment aside, Don Imus’ remarks were perceived by a multitude of people to be hurtful, wicked, and inexcusable. Rutgers player Essence Carson went as far as to say that Imus' remarks “had stolen a moment of pure grace” from the squad, who had completed a Cinderella-like run in the NCAA tournament. This, to me, paints a grim picture for what is acceptable in media and entertainment today, and it is why I agree with the actions taken against Imus. If the outcome had been different (say, Imus merely suspended and back on the air within days), it would undoubtedly create a slippery slope of what can be broadcast on mass media. Then who know what kind of perverse speech we’d be hearing and seeing on a daily basis?
Sadly, that is a topic for another blog on another day.
#1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RF9BjB7Bzr0
#2: http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/index?archive=070406
#3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aaGnu0l8shs
#4: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Yz-uUHiahA
#5: http://www.eff.org/legal/cases/FCC_v_Pacifica/fcc_v_pacifica.decision
#6: http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/comm/free_speech/cohen.html
#7: http://youtube.com/watch?v=rTO_oG3GpH4
#8: http://youtube.com/watch?v=VFSNYIrDKY0
#9: http://youtube.com/watch?v=QvKSPnqHbl4
#10: http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=local&id=4161148
At the time of the incident, Imus and his executive producer Bernard McGuirk were discussing the NCAA Women's Basketball Championship game between the Rutgers University Scarlet Knights and the University of Tennessee Lady Volunteers. A brief transcript of the conversation is as follows:
IMUS: That's some rough girls from Rutgers. Man, they got tattoos and --
McGUIRK: Some hard-core hos.
IMUS: That's some nappy-headed hos there. I'm gonna tell you that now, man, that's some -- woo. And the girls from Tennessee, they all look cute, you know, so, like -- kinda like -- I don't know.
McGUIRK: A Spike Lee thing.
IMUS: Yeah.
McGUIRK: The Jigaboos vs. the Wannabes -- that movie that he had. [#1]
[NOTE: for clarification purposes, I offer the following from dictionary.com:
nappy (adj.)
"downy," 1499, from nap (n.). Meaning "fuzzy, kinky," used in colloquial or derogatory ref. to the hair of black people, is from 1950. ]
Two days later, amidst many prominent media figures calling for his firing [#2], Imus issued a formal apology on his radio program [#3]. However, that appeared to be too little, too late, as one week later, MSNBC announced that it would no longer broadcast Imus in the Morning, and the next day CBS fired Imus and cancelled the show altogether [#4].
It has been established in the courts that speech that carries a captive audience is one of three types that are unprotected under the First Amendment. This neoliberal guideline came into being as a result of the Federal Communications Commission v. Pacifica Foundation case from 1978 [#5]. In that case, the court ruled that the broadcast medium (i.e. radio, television) fell under the realm of captive audience in that once one accessed the material, there was no plausible way to avoid receiving it (This is opposed to a medium that does not possess captive audience, such as the Internet, where one must make a conscious choice to receive content). Thus, speech on the broadcast medium can be regulated.
While Imus’ speech was indeed not regulated on a “live” basis like one thinks of censorship on television today, in my opinion, his ensuing reprimand was justified and a regulation in its own right. Now, I would be remiss if I didn’t present the Constitutional evidence that promotes Imus’ reference to the hos of the nappy-headed variety. Yes, his words did not fall into either of the other two categories of unprotected speech: They did not create an immediate threat to violence (fighting words), nor can the word “ho” be defined as obscene in comparison to Cohen v. California (1971), where the word “fuck” was deemed permissible as protected expression [#6]. And if you don’t buy the Cohen argument, look no further that the multiple explicit uses of “ho” in today’s entertainment spectrum [#7-9].
On a broader sense, one can even go so far as to say that Imus’ words contributed to the marketplace of ideas advocated by the First Amendment. In this blogger’s opinion, however, all that falls short to the point I made above. That is, Don Imus operated on a medium that had captive audience, and thus, he must pay the price for his actions.
One does not even have to gaze that far back to come across another broadcast controversy with similar circumstances and the same outcome. On May 8th, 2006, DJ Star (real name Troi Torain) of Hot 97 FM in New York City made explicit comments on air about the four year old daughter of a rival DJ. He elaborated that he would like to sexually violate the young girl as well as urged listeners to provide personal information about her for his personal use. Two days later…you guessed it…Star was terminated by Clear Channel Radio [#10].
The First Amendment aside, Don Imus’ remarks were perceived by a multitude of people to be hurtful, wicked, and inexcusable. Rutgers player Essence Carson went as far as to say that Imus' remarks “had stolen a moment of pure grace” from the squad, who had completed a Cinderella-like run in the NCAA tournament. This, to me, paints a grim picture for what is acceptable in media and entertainment today, and it is why I agree with the actions taken against Imus. If the outcome had been different (say, Imus merely suspended and back on the air within days), it would undoubtedly create a slippery slope of what can be broadcast on mass media. Then who know what kind of perverse speech we’d be hearing and seeing on a daily basis?
Sadly, that is a topic for another blog on another day.
#1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RF9BjB7Bzr0
#2: http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/index?archive=070406
#3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aaGnu0l8shs
#4: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Yz-uUHiahA
#5: http://www.eff.org/legal/cases/FCC_v_Pacifica/fcc_v_pacifica.decision
#6: http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/comm/free_speech/cohen.html
#7: http://youtube.com/watch?v=rTO_oG3GpH4
#8: http://youtube.com/watch?v=VFSNYIrDKY0
#9: http://youtube.com/watch?v=QvKSPnqHbl4
#10: http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=local&id=4161148
Tuesday, October 2, 2007
Blog #2 101107 - "The Summer of Sin"
Whether 40 years ago with the Pentagon Papers or in our current day and age with the War in Iraq, the phrase “the people’s right to know” inevitably pervades. And the scope of that phrase is certainly open to debate. Does the general public have the right to know anything and everything about an issue? Or should the public be shielded from some information for their own good? Some of the recent events in the world of sports beg those exact questions and are worth examining.
The summer of 2007 was dubbed by many in the media as the “summer of sin” in professional sports. National Basketball Association veteran referee Tim Donaghy pled guilty to betting on games in which he refereed, a cardinal sin in the world of sports [#1]. San Francisco Giant Barry Bonds broke the record for career home runs, but not without an enormous cloud of controversy over his head debating whether he used steroids to achieve the feat [#2]. And what is being called one of the worst scandals in sports history, Atlanta Falcons quarterback Michael Vick admitted to his involvement in an illegal dogfighting ring [#3]. In each of these cases, to say the public speculation on the matter was rampant would be an understatement. Which brings up the question: where is the line where information crosses the realm of public’s right to know into the private life of the individual in scrutiny?
Take Donaghy’s betting scandal...
As the facts emerged in the case, not only did the media scrutinize his actions on the court that led to the fiasco, but also Donaghy’s actions behind closed doors, including his family life, past gambling addictions, and possible mob connections. Even the Government got involved. On July 27th, NBA Commissioner David Stern met with U.S. Representative Bobby Rush, the head of the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection. Rush was quoted as saying before the meeting that he would consider calling a public hearing on the issue "should the facts warrant public scrutiny." [#4] This hearing did not happen, which I believe was for the good of the public. Yes, I agree that one must be well informed (that is, have knowledge on both sides of an issue) in order to maintain a just opinion. Nevertheless, I believe “the people’s right to know” has a scope. If one wanted to decide whether Donaghy’s actions were foul (no pun intended), does he or she really need to know that he is involved in a divorce and custody battle over his four children? The answer is no. Absorb the facts of the issue, and leave private matters alone.
Or take Bonds’ steroid allegations…
In a 2005 press conference, Bonds stated that he was physically and emotionally tired from both on-the-field strains (he was going through a knee injury at the time) and the media’s off-putting depiction of him and his alleged steroid use. Despite his pleas, that criticism did not wane over the next two years. In fact, it consistently increased as Bonds approached the precipice of baseball immortality in 756 home runs. Anything and everything was subject to scrutiny: Bonds’ personal life, his early playing days with the Pittsburgh Pirates, his testimony to a grand jury on steroids in 2003 [#5], the list goes on and on.
Now while I personally am not a fan of Barry Bonds, I do adamantly believe that the media hoopla surrounding the home run record drastically diminished the significance of it. The bottom line is that Bonds has passed every steroid test he has taken, and he is yet to be indicted on any perjury charges in conjunction with his 2003 testimony. Yet still, journalists focus on the more grisly aspects of the situation. And we have established that even though journalists may have serious doubts about what they report on (actual malice), they are simply doing their job. The courts established the plaintiff’s burden of actual malice in the first place so the plaintiff more often than not would lose, in turn promoting wide open, robust speech. Even so, I again stress that there is a line that must not be crossed. Let the man play baseball and have a peaceful life outside of it until hard evidence arises that refutes his achievements.
Finally, let’s examine what I believe to be the grimmest of the three scandals, Michael Vick’s involvement in dogfighting…
Let me preface this explanation by saying that the facts in this case are not for the weak of heart. Vick admitted to organizing and funding the activities, which included training the animals, transporting them for fights, and receiving bets on the fights themselves. If a dog did not perform well in the brawls, Vick and his cohorts would execute it by methods such as hanging, drowning, electrocuting and shooting [#6]. For me personally after hearing these facts, the question isn’t “How much do I have the right to know?” but rather “Do I even want to know?” Michael Vick was the face of the Falcons’ organization, and in the fallout of his confession to these heinous actions, his and the Falcons’ reputation was irreversibly damaged. It brings to mind the case of Federal Communications Commission vs. Pacifica Foundation, which took the neoliberal stance of protecting the speaker from the obscenities in George Carlin’s monologue [#7]. Though Vick’s situation does not involve obscene speech, it does bear striking similarities to the case. Just like the Supreme Court was concerned with what speech is fit for children, the amount of information released in the Vick case must consider what affect it will have on children who held Vick up as their role model in the past.
A limit on the public’s right to know does not lend itself solely to the world of sports; these are merely recent examples. You can look at any time of national security (i.e. post- 9/11) and make the point that while some facts should be made known to the public domain, others should not. If the media knew every miniscule detail about the War in Iraq, there exists no doubt in my mind that the catastrophizing would be immensely greater than it is now, leading to civil unrest. A definite line of what information to be made known must be present for the common citizen’s own good.
#1: http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=2975532
#2: http://www.salem-news.com/articles/august082007/bonds_folo_080807.php
#3: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1665103,00.html
#4; http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=2950266
#5: http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/04/13/bonds.steroid/index.html
#6: http://www.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/vick-summary-of-facts-070824.pdf
#7: http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/comm/free_speech/pacifica.html
The summer of 2007 was dubbed by many in the media as the “summer of sin” in professional sports. National Basketball Association veteran referee Tim Donaghy pled guilty to betting on games in which he refereed, a cardinal sin in the world of sports [#1]. San Francisco Giant Barry Bonds broke the record for career home runs, but not without an enormous cloud of controversy over his head debating whether he used steroids to achieve the feat [#2]. And what is being called one of the worst scandals in sports history, Atlanta Falcons quarterback Michael Vick admitted to his involvement in an illegal dogfighting ring [#3]. In each of these cases, to say the public speculation on the matter was rampant would be an understatement. Which brings up the question: where is the line where information crosses the realm of public’s right to know into the private life of the individual in scrutiny?
Take Donaghy’s betting scandal...
As the facts emerged in the case, not only did the media scrutinize his actions on the court that led to the fiasco, but also Donaghy’s actions behind closed doors, including his family life, past gambling addictions, and possible mob connections. Even the Government got involved. On July 27th, NBA Commissioner David Stern met with U.S. Representative Bobby Rush, the head of the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection. Rush was quoted as saying before the meeting that he would consider calling a public hearing on the issue "should the facts warrant public scrutiny." [#4] This hearing did not happen, which I believe was for the good of the public. Yes, I agree that one must be well informed (that is, have knowledge on both sides of an issue) in order to maintain a just opinion. Nevertheless, I believe “the people’s right to know” has a scope. If one wanted to decide whether Donaghy’s actions were foul (no pun intended), does he or she really need to know that he is involved in a divorce and custody battle over his four children? The answer is no. Absorb the facts of the issue, and leave private matters alone.
Or take Bonds’ steroid allegations…
In a 2005 press conference, Bonds stated that he was physically and emotionally tired from both on-the-field strains (he was going through a knee injury at the time) and the media’s off-putting depiction of him and his alleged steroid use. Despite his pleas, that criticism did not wane over the next two years. In fact, it consistently increased as Bonds approached the precipice of baseball immortality in 756 home runs. Anything and everything was subject to scrutiny: Bonds’ personal life, his early playing days with the Pittsburgh Pirates, his testimony to a grand jury on steroids in 2003 [#5], the list goes on and on.
Now while I personally am not a fan of Barry Bonds, I do adamantly believe that the media hoopla surrounding the home run record drastically diminished the significance of it. The bottom line is that Bonds has passed every steroid test he has taken, and he is yet to be indicted on any perjury charges in conjunction with his 2003 testimony. Yet still, journalists focus on the more grisly aspects of the situation. And we have established that even though journalists may have serious doubts about what they report on (actual malice), they are simply doing their job. The courts established the plaintiff’s burden of actual malice in the first place so the plaintiff more often than not would lose, in turn promoting wide open, robust speech. Even so, I again stress that there is a line that must not be crossed. Let the man play baseball and have a peaceful life outside of it until hard evidence arises that refutes his achievements.
Finally, let’s examine what I believe to be the grimmest of the three scandals, Michael Vick’s involvement in dogfighting…
Let me preface this explanation by saying that the facts in this case are not for the weak of heart. Vick admitted to organizing and funding the activities, which included training the animals, transporting them for fights, and receiving bets on the fights themselves. If a dog did not perform well in the brawls, Vick and his cohorts would execute it by methods such as hanging, drowning, electrocuting and shooting [#6]. For me personally after hearing these facts, the question isn’t “How much do I have the right to know?” but rather “Do I even want to know?” Michael Vick was the face of the Falcons’ organization, and in the fallout of his confession to these heinous actions, his and the Falcons’ reputation was irreversibly damaged. It brings to mind the case of Federal Communications Commission vs. Pacifica Foundation, which took the neoliberal stance of protecting the speaker from the obscenities in George Carlin’s monologue [#7]. Though Vick’s situation does not involve obscene speech, it does bear striking similarities to the case. Just like the Supreme Court was concerned with what speech is fit for children, the amount of information released in the Vick case must consider what affect it will have on children who held Vick up as their role model in the past.
A limit on the public’s right to know does not lend itself solely to the world of sports; these are merely recent examples. You can look at any time of national security (i.e. post- 9/11) and make the point that while some facts should be made known to the public domain, others should not. If the media knew every miniscule detail about the War in Iraq, there exists no doubt in my mind that the catastrophizing would be immensely greater than it is now, leading to civil unrest. A definite line of what information to be made known must be present for the common citizen’s own good.
#1: http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=2975532
#2: http://www.salem-news.com/articles/august082007/bonds_folo_080807.php
#3: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1665103,00.html
#4; http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=2950266
#5: http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/04/13/bonds.steroid/index.html
#6: http://www.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/vick-summary-of-facts-070824.pdf
#7: http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/comm/free_speech/pacifica.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)