Posting someone's personal information is morally and ethically wrong

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 9/10/06 at 1:41pm

Some say such tactics are reprehensible and must be rejected in a culture that values civility. They would believe it is time for people who consider themselves fans of Michelle Malkin to publically reject her and to take a personal stand against her. In front of everyone. Either you're agin it or you're for it.

From the Santa Cruz Sentinel:

After nationally syndicated columnist and blogger Michelle Malkin posted the e-mail addresses and phone numbers of three members of Students Against War, they received a flood of obscene and harassing messages from around the country, including death threats. When a liberal Web site, in retaliation, published Malkin's cell phone number and home address, a full-blown blog war ensued.



Cyber War Heats Up

Updated On: 9/10/06 at 01:41 PM

[JustAGuy]

Posted: 9/10/06 at 1:53pm

Poor Michelle, hoist by her own petard. Must have been a bitter pill for her to swallow.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 9/10/06 at 1:55pm

I'd hate to paint with an overly broad brush, which is something Michelle Malkin does as a matter of course, but I can't help but wonder if all of her supporters and fans think that what she did is a good thing?

[JustAGuy]

Posted: 9/10/06 at 2:06pm

I'm sure there must be at least one supporter in OHIO who's running circles around himself trying to figure out how to best address this question.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 9/10/06 at 2:19pm

Yes, I too am very very curious as to this very issue.

[JustAGuy]

Posted: 9/10/06 at 2:38pm

I fear that this thread is being avoided at all cost, by the very people who would normally scream abuse, if such a thing were to happen to them. Interesting.

[Chanticleer148]

Posted: 9/10/06 at 2:44pm

I am happy to engage this debate, as soon as I have the full story. Does anyone else have more "facts." Clearly, any critical thinker can see that the highly edited snippet presented here is not the full story.

The highly regulated and enforced literary standards of this posting board require full disclosure before rendering an opinion.

PS: I have disagreed with Michelle before. I am anxious to have the full story aired.

Have any of you ever disagreed with the NY Times editorial board?

Just thinking about intellectual robotics.

[StageManager2]

Posted: 9/10/06 at 2:45pm

Good for you, Chanti!

*looks at Namo*

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 9/10/06 at 2:50pm

Oh. I hadn't even thought of that. That there might be Michelle Malkin fans on this very board. Now I'm curious. What must they think of what some would call this ethical lapse of hers?

Edited to ad that I happily supplied a link to the article I quoted from the very beginning. From there it should just be a jump and a google and a click to read even more about the very subject.

Mr. Chanticleer, in case you were unaware, the highlighted red sentence is what is called a "link" and by simply clicking it, it will take you to the article I very clearly credited and excerpted from.

I for one await your response to this very critical ethical issue. Please remember, that this is a discussion about the ethics and morals of one public person, and not about disagreeing with the editorial stance of a newspaper that is no part of this discussion. I know how hard it is for you to contain yourself to the topic at hand without flailing and tossing in new topics that have nothing to do with the original discussion.

Updated On: 9/10/06 at 02:50 PM

[Elphaba]

Posted: 9/10/06 at 2:53pm

I love how the silly conservatives react when they have to take the medicine they dish out.....like the little piggy, they go wee-wee-wee all the way home....

[nomdeplume]

Posted: 9/10/06 at 2:55pm

Da.

[orangeskittles]

Posted: 9/10/06 at 3:01pm

I've never heard of her, but I think that is completely wrong. I can't believe she had the audacity to whine about having to move when she brought it on herself. Does she care what the students have to go through to move on from this? Probably not.

[Chanticleer148]

Posted: 9/10/06 at 3:02pm

Oh thank you, Namo, I saw the link. I just simply wasn't relying on one biased source to form an entire opinion. Usually, I try to look beyond one overtly warped, discredited source before I speak on something.

I really don't know how you might form opinions, but knowing the "newly enforced standards" on this journalistic MECCA, I knew that I needed to look beyond the newspaper of record to find the truth. I suggest that you do the same so that we aren't deleted again...

Off to research...I shall return. In the meantime, everyone keep looking frantically through the TIMES for more dirt on conservatives. There's a lot there, but you know, on this board, the TIMES is holy. I'll have to stop by and worship at the shrine while I am googling away (all at my good friend Namo's suggestion).

Thanks again buddy.

[StageManager2]

Posted: 9/10/06 at 3:02pm

I'm not a Michelle Malkin fan. Heck, I didn't even know who she was until a few days ago. I was merely praising Chanti for thinking hefore he commented on the article, although he did take a figuritive jab at Namo. But that's a start.

ETA: For the record, I don't condone what Michelle did. It was a despicable and unfortunate act on her part.

Updated On: 9/10/06 at 03:02 PM

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 9/10/06 at 3:04pm

Well I will say this for Michelle Malkin, I hadn't thought of the line of argument she uses in defense of her actions of publishing the personal information of people, (Mr. Chanticleer, this is also from the same Santa Cruz Sentinel article I clearly quoted above and which is reachable from the helpful red text link "Cyber War Heats Up" that I provided from the very beginning):

When students called Malkin to request she remove the student information, Malkin reposted the names and numbers several more times. She defended the decision, blaming SAW for posting a link to the news release on its Web site.

I hadn't thought of this. Did the SAW students lose their right to complain about Michelle Malkin publishing their personal information because they posted a link to the press release which included their contact information on their website?

I'm starting to think that maybe she has a legal point, even if the students felt it was morally and ethically wrong.

I wonder what others here think?

[nomdeplume]

Posted: 9/10/06 at 3:09pm

Dadadadada.

[CostumeMistress]

Posted: 9/10/06 at 3:17pm

God, do I ever miss the meltdown thread.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 9/10/06 at 3:19pm

I'm surprised a self-professed Michelle Malkin fan can imply honestly that he had not heard of all this drama before today. I heard about it by the end of April.

Again, Mr. Chanticleer, I would urge you to stop invoking the straw man of the NY Times, which has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand.

The topic at hand is that some say that it was morally and ethically wrong for Michelle Malkin to publish the students' names and phone numbers and email addresses, while Ms. Malkin says the press release the students issued as "journalist-only" was linked to their web pages, and therefore it is "their own fault" that she published the information on the web, and then republished it.

That's the issue being discussed here and it will be a better discussion if we all try to stay on that topic.

Updated On: 9/10/06 at 03:19 PM

[Chanticleer148]

Posted: 9/10/06 at 3:20pm

Well, this is certainly worth looking at a little more.

I did not realize at all that Michelle's highly rated and well researched blog had a posting board that could be compared to the one here at our beloved BWW. We should all be spending time over there with our "friendly debates" as a part of our BWW "diversity" training.

If she does not have a posting board (and I wouldn't know, Namo-you are the expert on Michelle), it seems that drawing parallels was a weak, if not non-existant strategy from the beginning.

But, of course, if you don't function in an accountable, professional environment every day, you would not have to worry about credibility and things like making an argument parallel, and all that academic stuff-you know, truth, integrity, anti-harassment policies-other things in civil, professional society. You could just ignore reality, and make arguments that were not logical. You could "cherry-pick" your facts and play to the "home team."

Also, when there are others watching, and you can entertain the home crowd with your grand-standing and weak, almost non-existant thought-processes, the home team will cheer you on. In fact, they will gang up on anyone from the "other team."

Now, I realize that no one on this board would do anything like make a bogus argument, reveal half of the facts, or slant a story to fit one's purposes. This board has stunning integrity, and flawless journalistic standards. Only facts here. And, don't try to flaunt the rules, because the moderators insure a "fair and balanced" view every time.

[Chanticleer148]

Posted: 9/10/06 at 3:25pm

Namo, your last post was VERY instructive, but you are trying to maniplaute, moderate, and control the postings again. You said earlier that you would play fair, and that you could control your unhealthy impluses.

Are you still going to play by the Czar's rules of fairness and equality?

Or, do you plan to return to your previous actions that had us a deleted?

We're all friends here, right?

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 9/10/06 at 3:27pm

There were certainly a lot of words in that post, Mr. Chanticleer, but I don't see any that actually address the fact that Michelle Malkin posted people's personal information on the web more than once and defended herself by saying that she found the information on said people's website.

I personally think it's a very interesting line of argument she used, and while I appreciate the time you must have taken to type out what reads like the equivalent of a drowning man splashing violently in the water as if he believes the more water he displaces will somehow save him from finally going under, it didn't address that issue at all.

[colleen_lee]

Posted: 9/10/06 at 3:28pm

"But, of course, if you don't function in an accountable, professional environment every day, you would not have to worry about credibility and things like making an argument parallel, and all that academic stuff-you know, truth, integrity, anti-harassment policies-other things in civil, professional society."

Though apparently plagiarism is not included in this "profesional society".

Updated On: 9/10/06 at 03:28 PM

[Chanticleer148]

Posted: 9/10/06 at 3:29pm

Abuse! Abuse! Calling out Craig...

[colleen_lee]

Posted: 9/10/06 at 3:30pm

I just find it highly ironic that you, of all people, is trying to lecture on the behavior expected in a professional environment (which in all reality, is rather moot, being that BWW is a social message board and doesn't require the same professional discourse as, say, working as an educator would). Generally plagiarism finds it's way into the handbook as well.

Updated On: 9/10/06 at 03:30 PM

[FranklinShepard-Inc.]

Posted: 9/10/06 at 3:32pm

Chanti, be a dear and don't just cry "abuse" but do explain what kind of abuse you see and where you see it...