As Masha's name is so familiar on reports regarding the events in Russia, I understand she has been a successful journalist for a long time, including the years before immigration (I haven't realized she left Russia already and I doubt it was due to being out as a gay person for 20 years). Her piece is another contribution to solidify the image of Russia as this evil place prosecuting gays left and right. It would be nice if she included some statistics as for how many people are actually thrown to jail for being gay or attacked in those dark entryways as she describes and being beaten to death, the way it happened in some parts of the US just a few years ago. I don't doubt those attacks happen but not on the scale readers of NYT might imagine due to misleading pieces like these one.
1
As a life-long activist for LGBT rights and retired editor of an LGBT regional magazine who has been Out for more than 50 of my 70 years, I say the only reason for outing someone is if that person has been actively working against the welfare of LGBT persons. An anti-LGBT politician or preacher for example, who is secretly actively gay is fair game. Merely being a media personality does not, in itself, constitute just cause. This is especially true in a place where the consequences are likely to be tragic - Russia for example.
86
I've always felt that outing is only appropriate when the person being outed has engaged specifically in anti-x activities (a gay person for engaging in anti-gay activities). I don't think it should ever be used for any other purpose, especially when the person's livelihood - or life itself- may be endangered by doing so. Politics shouldn't (generally) come before an individual's life.
36
IMO, No one really has the right to "out" another person, nor should it be considered politically correct to do so--for whatever hubristic reason--in either country.
5
Gay persons who actively fight against gay rights must always be outed. Lies and hipocrisy in public life must always be exposed.
4
Never. Everyone has a right to a private life. And that's not for government, corporations, or self-appointed vigilantes to violate.
6
I think, by analogy, the author answers his own question in the last sentence of the article.
6
Judging from some of these comments, "the closet" is still very much alive and well right here in the USA. Those of us who have been "out" our entire adult lives will keep fighting for your rights, too, even as you fight for nothing greater than keeping your secret safe and collaborate in the ongoing oppression of your gay brothers and sisters.
8
People should mind their own businesses and stay out of the lives of others.
8
Repressed gay politicians who express their self-hatred by promoting harm against other gay people (like EJ Hoover, Mehlman) deserve to be exposed to the same harm they are promoting. Otherwise, outing unsuspecting citizens, who are trying to deal as best they can with the realities of their lives, is inexcusible.
In Russia, an authoritarian post-communist society of thugs and brutes, outing someone is like appointing yourself judge and executioner.
In other words, Ms. Gessen, no excuse for ambivalence. Defend yourself, otherwise MYOB.
In Russia, an authoritarian post-communist society of thugs and brutes, outing someone is like appointing yourself judge and executioner.
In other words, Ms. Gessen, no excuse for ambivalence. Defend yourself, otherwise MYOB.
9
Judging by the comments against outing someone, you would think being gay is shameful. It's only shameful if you let others dictate that belief to you. It is dishonest to pretend to be straight (and homophobic) when you are gay and an insult to your gay brothers and sisters. You deserve to be outed for acting like being gay is something shameful. There is safety in coming out in numbers, and not so much safety in allowing homophobes to divide and conquer and force gay people into the closet. But I acknowledge that being out means something a lot more dangerous in Russia. My hat is off to any Russians brave enough to come out of the closet and stand up to Russian thugs and fascists.
10
I agree with the underlying points, but still believe that, except in certain circumstances, it's the individual's choice.
Even in America a gay person might have reasons for not feeling secure coming out.
Even in America a gay person might have reasons for not feeling secure coming out.
12
You are right, Mr. Gessen. These individuals. outing themselves or outed by others, are fighting the Kremlin's war. The question is, of course, who is willing to engage the enemy, and who is preferring to remain non-combatant? Iit's your metaphor, not mine) Your doubts, however, are well founded. It is self-indulgent of someone like Ms. Sobchak to decide that she should out them based on her own judgement of what is right. In one case it might, might be justified. In the other case, I think not.
Even when the stakes in the U.S. were much lower two decades ago, it was still a matter of personal bravery to decide to come out to friends, to family, to coworkers, the public. Some could come out to friends they could trust, but could not trust family reactions. Some could come out to coworkers, some could not. Some might be in danger of losing jobs or even careers. It had to be a matter of personal choice, to come out at all, or whom to come out to and whom to not. Even for public figures, there are still situations where privacy must be protected. I don't understand any other reasoning than this.
Even when the stakes in the U.S. were much lower two decades ago, it was still a matter of personal bravery to decide to come out to friends, to family, to coworkers, the public. Some could come out to friends they could trust, but could not trust family reactions. Some could come out to coworkers, some could not. Some might be in danger of losing jobs or even careers. It had to be a matter of personal choice, to come out at all, or whom to come out to and whom to not. Even for public figures, there are still situations where privacy must be protected. I don't understand any other reasoning than this.
4
Unless someone is actively harming others and outing them would cause that to stop (the self defense argument), then there is no justification to destroy somebody's privacy and personal life. Everyone has secrets and keeping them is called privacy and trust.
12
Outing is rarely justifiable and is always an intent to harm another. The harm that the other is doing must be so egregious that not exposing them would be a dereliction of duty. Certainly advocating the death penalty for LGBT persons would fit that category. Or engaging in witch hunts. The right of privacy diminishes when the person involved is committing harmful public acts.
10
I disagree with your assertion that "Outing...is always an intent to harm another."
I most definitely agree with your other assertion that failting to out a person whose anti-gay behavior is so egregious that not exposing them would be a dereliction of duty. I suppose that in such a case one would have to agree on what constitutes being egregious. Closeted so-called "Christian" evangelists would be at the top of my list of deserving candidates for the "outing" experience.
I most definitely agree with your other assertion that failting to out a person whose anti-gay behavior is so egregious that not exposing them would be a dereliction of duty. I suppose that in such a case one would have to agree on what constitutes being egregious. Closeted so-called "Christian" evangelists would be at the top of my list of deserving candidates for the "outing" experience.
8
"I did not, and do not, think my article violated the man’s privacy, because none of my sources had been sworn to secrecy."
What an absurd and self-serving statement. Taking the whispers of sources and publishing them greatly invaded the person's privacy. Who gives some sanctimonious writer the right to decide how much privacy another person deserves? Everyone has the right to manage their own sexual persona.
What an absurd and self-serving statement. Taking the whispers of sources and publishing them greatly invaded the person's privacy. Who gives some sanctimonious writer the right to decide how much privacy another person deserves? Everyone has the right to manage their own sexual persona.
56
If what one does in his bedroom is his personal business and no one should be ethically 'able'to make an issue of it, then he must not make an issue of another's choice. To fail is as hypocritical as living a closeted life.
Outing anything should pertain only to illegal behaviors.
Remember the hoopla about 'keep out of my bedroom' . Very good advise....now keep out of everyone else's .
Outing anything should pertain only to illegal behaviors.
Remember the hoopla about 'keep out of my bedroom' . Very good advise....now keep out of everyone else's .
4
Sometimes zoos rationalize their containment of animals as having a greater good. Animals such as dolphins promote interest in kids, and presumably some sense of concern. I use this comparison with hesitation as there is a huge difference to begin with, but the reasoning behind “outing” is similar. However, even considering that there is some possible value in outing, I think the costs to individual privacy are too high and any person who would prefer to hide his or her sexual proclivities should be able to. I despise the self hating gays who play the political game, publicly condemn gays and are themselves, gay or otherwise outside the arbitrary lines society insists on imposing. Even so, I don’t think two wrongs make a right. It’s bad enough that society is still in the dark ages in the case of sexual orientation but at the vey least, any person should have the option to keep personal matters private.
9
All things done in the dark will eventually come to light.
1
Since it will come to light anyway, please tell us what you have done in the dark.
8
I thought that the LGBT rights movement was about restoring to the individual his (or her, assumed) autonomy and the right to manage his personal life as he wished, rather than have it yanked away by self-righteous prigs.
I figured out long ago I was wrong, which is why, for some time now, I have kept my distance from my so-called brothers and sisters in the LGBT community.
Even if you disdain someone as a hypocrite, you have no right to violate his dignity and autonomy by making such a decision for him as coming out. This is true even in America, where no one even yawns anymore. But in places where it is a life-changing, even life-threatening, decision, it goes beyond rude, to ethically inexcusable, in fact downright despicable, to wrap yourself in self-righteousness while hijacking someone else's decision. In such cases, the rainbow flag is the whiting on a sepulcher.
What an ugly place 'the community' has become.
I figured out long ago I was wrong, which is why, for some time now, I have kept my distance from my so-called brothers and sisters in the LGBT community.
Even if you disdain someone as a hypocrite, you have no right to violate his dignity and autonomy by making such a decision for him as coming out. This is true even in America, where no one even yawns anymore. But in places where it is a life-changing, even life-threatening, decision, it goes beyond rude, to ethically inexcusable, in fact downright despicable, to wrap yourself in self-righteousness while hijacking someone else's decision. In such cases, the rainbow flag is the whiting on a sepulcher.
What an ugly place 'the community' has become.
20
I have been much informed and impressed with Gessen's writing and journalism. But I must admit that I am disappointed and a bit surprised that she did not realize that most "outings", at least in the USA, have been clearly violent in nature, motivated by a desire to destroy someone's career and credibility as if they were an enemy on the battle field. The fact that she is now realizing that there can be all manner of collateral damages associated with normalizing this aggressive behavior is again disappointing. Some things really should be private, people should have the right to privacy that is recognized by laws and moral codes and constitutions particularly when most of the democratic majority target of rights bearing citizen audience simply does not have any legitimate interest in, or even care about most of the affairs of others.
12
With the possible exception of outing outspoken antigay politicians or activists who are secretly gay (and therefore frauds who might merit outing for the protection of their audience, especially if they seek votes or money on the basis of being anti-gay), outing was despicable when the author supported it in the 1990's and remains so. It violates privacy jsut as much as antisodomy laws did and often causes its victims severe emotional and financial harm.
Whether gays tell their parents and grandparents, or neighbors or coworkers, etc, they are gay should only be up to them.
Whether gays tell their parents and grandparents, or neighbors or coworkers, etc, they are gay should only be up to them.
29
Exposing someone's private life without their consent is simply rude.
21
Fair point, but using the authors scenario: If the Jew is actively helping to round up other Jews for slaughter it seems pretty reasonable to out them.
24
It's more than rude, if it possibly makes them victims of violence or retribution, or causes them to lose their job.
8
MYOB
Mind Your Own Business.
Apparently it is a lost art.
Mind Your Own Business.
Apparently it is a lost art.
27
Interesting.
Comments below claim that "right to privacy" belongs only to those who support gay political agenda.
"If you don't support my lifestyle, I will crush the life out of yours?"
Gay McCarthyism.
Students call it "Gay Mafia."
Comments below claim that "right to privacy" belongs only to those who support gay political agenda.
"If you don't support my lifestyle, I will crush the life out of yours?"
Gay McCarthyism.
Students call it "Gay Mafia."
18
Bravo. They can never see themselves as the perpetrators of bullying...only the victims.
4
SAFETY is the bottom line in any public disclosure. The Jews in Nazi Germany in 1934 were certainly unsafe. In fact, many Jews were turned in by neighbors, workers and former "friends," after which they were severely beaten if lucky, or either dispatched on the spot with a bullet to the brain or sent off to the concentration or death camps. Outing a public figure who's gay carries severe consequences, including immediate loss of employment as well as threats to wellbeing and safety. While not as severe as the lethal threats in Nazi Germany--at least not yet--outing a gay person in Russia these days could result in a death. Persons contemplating such disclosures must understand that they could destroy another human being's social standing, job status, safety or even life. My personal opinion is that such awful consequences need to weigh very heavily upon the conscience of anybody who contemplates outing a gay friend, colleague or acquaintance.
20
It seems we have two attitudes for the people that out. The first is, "They deserve to be outed and I am glad I'm the one to do it!" The self satisfaction is palpable. The second attitude is, "I'm really sorry I have to out this person, but it is for the greater good." Kind of like the researcher pulling the wings off a fly...
24
never, the correct answer is never.
38
Outing is only correct when it's done to reveal the hypocrisy of a closeted politician or other closeted public figure who condemns gay people.
143
Are you a hypocrite about anything? Got any faults or failings? I'll bet you do. And I hope they get broadcast all over the Internet and never go away.
How insufferable you are.
Outing someone else is wrong. Period. Paragraph. New thought. Attempting to justify it with such self-righteous cant increases the wrong by several orders of magnitude, to the point where it's hard to put my contempt into words the NYT would allow me to use.
How insufferable you are.
Outing someone else is wrong. Period. Paragraph. New thought. Attempting to justify it with such self-righteous cant increases the wrong by several orders of magnitude, to the point where it's hard to put my contempt into words the NYT would allow me to use.
13
"I published a piece in Out Magazine exposing a Russian nationalist politician, based on interviews with men who had had sex with the politician after meeting him in Moscow cruising spots. I did not, and do not, think my article violated the man’s privacy, because none of my sources had been sworn to secrecy."
This is called rationalizing.
This is called rationalizing.
72
Outing as a tactic in the U.S. happened only after gays became more visible through the various gay liberation movements and the AIDs crisis, followed by the subsequent pushback led by conservative political and religious factions. It then became a useful way to show how widespread homosexuality was within the population, and how futile it was to try to drive it from 'polite' society back into the underground. I don't think Russia is at that point yet where outing should be practiced by any third party, even though hypocrisy on the subject is widespread.
33
If black African Americans had the luxurious choice of "outing" or being "outed" about there race- as in colored instead of their race as in human- that people of a certain sexual orientation, national origin, faith or ethnicity have, what should or would be their rights or preferences?
Does having a choice about publicizing sexual orientation deal with privacy and reality or honesty and integrity ?
"If you had your choice of colors, which one would choose my brothers? If there was no day or night would you choose to be black or white?" The Impressions
See " A Chosen Exile: A History of Racial Passing in American Life" Allyson Hobbs: "One Drop: My Father's Hidden Life- A Story of Race and Family Secrets" Bliss Broyard about her father the late NYT book critic Anatole Broyard.
I have and had family members who have chosen to pass for white. I have not nor will not go along with their deception.
Does having a choice about publicizing sexual orientation deal with privacy and reality or honesty and integrity ?
"If you had your choice of colors, which one would choose my brothers? If there was no day or night would you choose to be black or white?" The Impressions
See " A Chosen Exile: A History of Racial Passing in American Life" Allyson Hobbs: "One Drop: My Father's Hidden Life- A Story of Race and Family Secrets" Bliss Broyard about her father the late NYT book critic Anatole Broyard.
I have and had family members who have chosen to pass for white. I have not nor will not go along with their deception.
1
is not race a social construct like gender? "Progressives" can not pick and choose what is most comfortable for them. Are your relatives bi-racial, so therefore they MAY choose with which race to identify?
8
American history born in humanity denying enslavement and nurtured in equality end class citizenship does not give a choice of race to a physically identifiable by half colored African race nature and all white by white cultural nurture like Barack Hussein Obama a racial identification choice.
I have white European, black African and brown Native ancestry. In America that tri-racial colored history equals black. The biological evolutionary DNA reality of one human race born in East Africa 180-200 thousand years ago is belied by American socioeconomic political educational history.
I have white European, black African and brown Native ancestry. In America that tri-racial colored history equals black. The biological evolutionary DNA reality of one human race born in East Africa 180-200 thousand years ago is belied by American socioeconomic political educational history.
1
The author fled the country to avoid attacks on her and her family, then wonders whether it's OK for anyone to out gay people in Russia. What?
I hope her doubts are resolved in the rather obvious direction of recognizing that it would be morally abhorrent to subject others to very real dangers in order to further a cause, even when those others do not want to take the risk. Russia is a dreadful place for "deviants" today. The risk isn't for mere embarrassment, but for safety of life and limb.
I admire Ms. Gessen's work and have learned a great deal from her articles, but frankly, I'm shocked that she is undecided on this matter.
I hope her doubts are resolved in the rather obvious direction of recognizing that it would be morally abhorrent to subject others to very real dangers in order to further a cause, even when those others do not want to take the risk. Russia is a dreadful place for "deviants" today. The risk isn't for mere embarrassment, but for safety of life and limb.
I admire Ms. Gessen's work and have learned a great deal from her articles, but frankly, I'm shocked that she is undecided on this matter.
27
"After realizing that some of their friends, neighbors and family members — or television hosts — are gay, people will become more tolerant of homosexuality." Let's not overthink this. "Outing" is the verbal equivalent of assault. If someone does not want others to know about a matter he/she considers to be private or potentially embarrassing, for whatever reasons, compelling disclosure of that matter against that person's will is an assault on that person's integrity and right of self-determination. Want to throw someone under the bus for a "greater cause"? Start by throwing yourself under the bus. Other peoples' private business is none of your business.
47
Unless they are doing harm to their own with lies and hypocrisy.... Ken Mehlman, Ted Haggard etc.
39
In the open, Western societies OUTING is acceptable. The closeted are reaping the benefits hard won by the rest of us. It's like the Little Red Hen folktale. However, in backward societies such as Russia, Arab and Africa where being gay is illegal and often results in jail or worse death, it is not correct to OUT someone.
12
Ken Mehlman, et al aside, outing might be described as a hate misdemeanor.
I am familiar with instances like Harvey Milk "outing" Oliver Sipple, and that Harvey's motivation was that "It's too good an opportunity. For once we can show that gays do heroic things, not just all that caca about molesting children and hanging out in bathrooms". But ultimately Harvey Milk didn't have the right to make that call.
The LGBT community has changed our culture, but they must always respect others first. Too often they crush anyone, including people like Oliver Sipple, because they care more about their agenda than about people.
That is why I believe there is no reason to ever "out" anyone. People's private lives should be just that- PRIVATE!
The LGBT community has changed our culture, but they must always respect others first. Too often they crush anyone, including people like Oliver Sipple, because they care more about their agenda than about people.
That is why I believe there is no reason to ever "out" anyone. People's private lives should be just that- PRIVATE!
22
surgres, I was motivated by your post to read the Wikipedia bio of Oliver Sipple. I agree with you, Harvey Milk had absolutely no right to out Sipple. From what Wikipedia says, being outed had many negative effects on Sipple's life.
I have mixed feelings about outing someone who is in a position of power (either politically or because of being a popular public figure) and who publicly condemns the LGBT community. But only if that person lives in a country where outing that person does not put his/her life in danger. Outing someone in the US can cause job loss, family estrangement, public condemnation. Outing someone in Russia, for whatever reason, can cause that person's serious injury or death.
It doesn't matter that the men Sobchak outed were in positions of power and in those positions uttered condemnations of LGBT people. Outing them put their lives at risk, and no one has the right to do that.
I have mixed feelings about outing someone who is in a position of power (either politically or because of being a popular public figure) and who publicly condemns the LGBT community. But only if that person lives in a country where outing that person does not put his/her life in danger. Outing someone in the US can cause job loss, family estrangement, public condemnation. Outing someone in Russia, for whatever reason, can cause that person's serious injury or death.
It doesn't matter that the men Sobchak outed were in positions of power and in those positions uttered condemnations of LGBT people. Outing them put their lives at risk, and no one has the right to do that.
11
but they must always respect others first.
If you are holding a gun, metaphorical or not, to my head, you do not have my respect nor should I respect you. If you cause me harm, if you try to make my life less than yours then NO. You deserve NO respect.
If you are holding a gun, metaphorical or not, to my head, you do not have my respect nor should I respect you. If you cause me harm, if you try to make my life less than yours then NO. You deserve NO respect.
15
Assuming the Kremlin will not violently repress dissent is a dangerous misinterpretation of Russian history. Outing someone where they could be put to death by the state or the mob is playing with someone else's life, and is not O.K.
31
I think that most people have things about them that they would rather not be made public- for whatever reason. With the possible exception of criminal behavior, I can think of no viable reason to " out " someone other then meanspiritedness.
17
Mean spiritedness? I give you J. Edgar Hoover. Can you tell me that if someone had had the opportunity to make his homosexuality public that they would not have been doing a public service and saving millions of Americans from harassment and more? I would suggest that you might consider a more nuanced view. From my POV there are definitely reasons other than mean-spiritedness that might justify outing a person. I would say that anyone in a position of power who uses that power to hurt a particular group of which he is privately part deserves what s/he gets. I would be very thoughtful about ever actually doing something about it, but I wouldn't disallow it on principle.
54
I can. Ken Mehlman.
17
Does the author not realize that there's a big difference between outing somebody in the USA, and in Russia today?
23
Did you read the article? That difference was the whole point.
12
If a politician or a religious leader is condemning gay people publicly, and working hard to make life difficult for gay people, and simultaneously carrying on a gay personal relationship, then outing them is fair game. It isn't decent or nice, but neither is what they're doing. It would be lovely if we could all be respectful, but sometimes it's impossible.
64
Once you decide there are some unpleasant people whom it is "OK to Out", then you are sliding rapidly down a "slippery slope".
Pretty soon, that power to humiliate and control becomes irresistible, and you stop caring who are hurting or what families you are destroying.
Pretty soon, that power to humiliate and control becomes irresistible, and you stop caring who are hurting or what families you are destroying.
3
It's too bad that we care whether people are gay, straight or something in between beyond what they want us to know. I had no idea Ms. Gessen, a fine writer who has educated and informed me on a variety of subjects, was a lesbian, nor did I care.
However, when you engage a prostitute or put yourself in a position of vulnerability with a stranger, your secret is no longer safe. Should a news organization have reported it? Probably not, but these days there are myriad ways to spread the word without traditional media. The American executive is related to a public figure, doubling his risk. One suspects he had locked himself in a prison from which he wanted to escape. It's possible to keep a secret. It may mean fewer encounters, a kind of deprivation, but no one, really, is responsible for their outing except the party who couldn't keep the secret, or didn't really want to.
This doesn't mean Gessen doesn't get it right. It isn't "news."
However, when you engage a prostitute or put yourself in a position of vulnerability with a stranger, your secret is no longer safe. Should a news organization have reported it? Probably not, but these days there are myriad ways to spread the word without traditional media. The American executive is related to a public figure, doubling his risk. One suspects he had locked himself in a prison from which he wanted to escape. It's possible to keep a secret. It may mean fewer encounters, a kind of deprivation, but no one, really, is responsible for their outing except the party who couldn't keep the secret, or didn't really want to.
This doesn't mean Gessen doesn't get it right. It isn't "news."
4
"When Is Outing Right?" When a legislator who constantly votes against gay rights and equality is discovered to be gay him/herself.
95
@Alan Chaprack
I disagree. Even though you may disagree with someone like that, if you believe in a right to privacy, you should not "out" them.
The challenge of respect and rights is occasion like that. If you want respect, you have to give it yourself.
I disagree. Even though you may disagree with someone like that, if you believe in a right to privacy, you should not "out" them.
The challenge of respect and rights is occasion like that. If you want respect, you have to give it yourself.
8
Alan is correct. You cannot hide behind a sham "right to privacy" to damage me and my community. In Alan's scenario, outing that legislator is appropriate and morally justifiable.
31
Surgres: I believe when someone is elected to public office based on a lie, that lie has to be exposed; in this situation, it's the voters that matter.
27
The article is filled with ifs and buts as suits a subject fraught with contradictions. The last question sums it up for me: "But what right would anyone have had to expose someone as Jewish in, say, Berlin in 1934?" It's not a matter of "right." It's one of justification, and maybe even duty. Let's say, in another hypothetical, that the Jew in question were part of the Nazi machine that threatened all Jews and had demeaned and injured many already. Such a person should be exposed--if it didn't put others at risk. Another "if," and another judgment call.
The same criteria apply in America and in Russia to gays. I don’t know the details of the lives of those outed in Russia, but it’s easy to imagine their involvement in suppression of civil rights. If so, they have no right to privacy in that regard. And an American gay who wholeheartedly supports the agenda of the GOP? Rip down the curtains!
An editorial in today’s NYT asks what the threats to the USA are, and it wisely sticks with external threats. Otherwise, I would say that hypocrisy is our greatest threat.
The same criteria apply in America and in Russia to gays. I don’t know the details of the lives of those outed in Russia, but it’s easy to imagine their involvement in suppression of civil rights. If so, they have no right to privacy in that regard. And an American gay who wholeheartedly supports the agenda of the GOP? Rip down the curtains!
An editorial in today’s NYT asks what the threats to the USA are, and it wisely sticks with external threats. Otherwise, I would say that hypocrisy is our greatest threat.
6
Never. Outing is never right.
It is a fundamental invasion of privacy.
It can endanger the person outed, in their lifestyle or even their life, and so is a hostile act.
It is selfish, putting first the interests of the one doing the outing, disregarding the interests of the person outed as that person has the sole right to control them.
It is a fundamental invasion of privacy.
It can endanger the person outed, in their lifestyle or even their life, and so is a hostile act.
It is selfish, putting first the interests of the one doing the outing, disregarding the interests of the person outed as that person has the sole right to control them.
61
I look at "outing" in a larger context. GLBT behavior is no longer criminal and therefore should not be outed without some enormous reason: public support of criminalization of GLBT could be considered an enormous reason.
But "outing" a secret pedophile may be an important contribution to public safety.
"Outing" the perpetrator of an as yet secret ponzi scheme could be another contribution to the public. "Outing" a public or political or financial lie is also an important service to the public.
But "outing" a secret pedophile may be an important contribution to public safety.
"Outing" the perpetrator of an as yet secret ponzi scheme could be another contribution to the public. "Outing" a public or political or financial lie is also an important service to the public.
4
I agree that crimes and lies ought to be reported. However, I don't see that as "outing."
That behavior has crossed a line to become something else, not private, not personal, and harming others.
That behavior has crossed a line to become something else, not private, not personal, and harming others.
13
You're gonna need a shovel with a longer handle to get the dirt out of the hole you're digging for yourself, Mark. Hiding behind the "right to privacy" while simultaneously bringing disgrace upon another for the very thing you yourself are "guilty" of nullifies this "right" you have conferred upon yourself but deny to others.
There should be a Home Depot near where you live. Or Ace Hardware, Walmart, Lowe's...
There should be a Home Depot near where you live. Or Ace Hardware, Walmart, Lowe's...
6
This article is about a a male media executive's relationship with a male sex worker, and the article appears to be more worried about the media executives reputation as a homosexual, rather than the fact the media exec was using the power of money over the most vulnerable individuals in our society.
This should have nothing to do with "sexual minorities." This is about an abusive person taking advantage of individuals in the most reprehensible and personal way possible.
Who cares if he is gay? Nothing wrong with that. He is promoting prostitution -- no less than a pimp -- and that is the reason to pillory him.