When I was a child my four brothers and sisters and I enjoyed a sometimes bucolic childhood filled with lots of cousins, and therefore, lots of play and lots of love. These carefree years were also filled with lots of bullying in the form of harsh words and criticism. Back then neither we children nor, to my knowledge, our parents, recognized it as such, but years later I know that the harm done was just the same. Bullying manifested itself in the form of derogatory comments made to our cousins Michael and Michelle because they were the lightest skinned of us all and similarly cruel comments and behavior towards our cousin Andre. I’m still not sure why he was fair game to be picked on, I just know that my older siblings and other cousins treated him poorly, so in my mind I was allowed to do so as well. As an adult today I recognize the behaviors I witnessed and participated in as bullying and deeply regret that as a child I didn’t know how to recognize this as wrong behavior or inform an adult.
In the case described by Roy Malone, I believe that the decision by Steve Pokin not to publish the name of the offenders in the case of the Megan Meier suicide was ethically sound based on Mill’s theory of ethical decision making. Mills’s utilitarian view of ethical dilemmas suggests that the greatest good for the greatest number of people [Patterson/Wilkins, p.11] should drive the process of deciding what to do in the face of an ethical dilemma. This model focuses on the outcome of an action. Using this model, Malone could argue that releasing the names of the offenders could have increased the threat of harm (or mob justice) towards the mother, her daughter and the 18-year-old employee. Looking at the situation from this perspective, releasing the names of these people would be unethical as it could generate the very behavior towards these people that they inflicted on Megan Meier.
Conversely, Immanuel Kant’s ethical theory placed the emphasis on the act itself, not the outcome (Patterson/Wilkins, p.9-10). Kant suggested that an act was morally justified if it was completed from a position of duty. In the case of the St. Louis Post Dispatch’s decision to print the names of the Megan Meier’s tormentors, one could say that the paper acted out of duty to its readers to tell as complete a story as possible. In this view, their decision was ethical as they provided their readers with the whole story, or rather, as much of the story as they had access to.
Personally, I find Mill’s ethical theory more compelling in the case of Megan Meier. I would place more weight on the greater good or the outcome of releasing or withholding the names of those who bullied her to death. I find the threat of vigilantism a compelling reason not to release the names.
In my opinion, the duty of a newspaper is to provide its readers with valuable information to help them make decisions or form opinions on issues that affect their lives. I believe that most readers expect their publications to provide them with thorough and true information devoid of opinion or bias. In this way our media should be autonomous and should investigate issues that benefit our communities in such a way as to make transparent issues that are being hidden or covered up by industry, politicians and the like. Our media should strive to bring no harm to its readers, but rather, provide justice for those whose voices are not being heard. Taking these issues into consideration, it could be argued that the decision to release the names of Megan’s tormentors by the Post Dispatch was justified as doing so meant that the paper was making transparent a situation that had been covered up by other media and by the police. The public has a right to know when members of their community are accused of, or have admitted to committing, what some might consider a crime. Today our society recognizes the real danger bullying. Therefore, it should be held on par with other crimes, especially those that harm a child. Just as its important to know when someone has admitted to or has been convicted of molesting a child, the public has the right to know when an adult has admitted to bullying a child – especially when the result of that behavior resulted in the child’s death.
Conversely, I believe that Polkin and his Suburban Journals editor placed more weight on the issues of harm, privacy and community when deciding not to release the names of the neighbors who drove Megan to suicide. From this perspective one could argue that releasing the names would cause more harm than good as it could drive vigilantism, which in the long run would undermine our country’s justice system and cause more overall harm to the community. Our justice system is based on the premise that a person is innocent until proven guilty. In this case, the neighbor, her daughter and the employee admitted to the act of bullying, but with no anti-bullying laws on the books, the police could not hold them for judgement by a jury of their peers. Should someone be ostracized for acts not distinguished as a crime by our justice system? Perhaps not.
A majority of our class discussions have touched on the fundamentals of the First Amendment – the right to free speech. This basic right is the most valued, and perhaps the most defended, of all our rights. In my opinion, social networks like Myspace and Facebook are platforms for users to exercise their freedom of speech. These platforms allow users to share their personal thoughts with friends and acquaintances, and depending on their privacy settings, the public at large. In many ways they are electronic pieces of paper or electronic diaries. Should the piece of paper be held accountable for the words and opinions that are written on them? I say no.
I believe that the danger of holding social networks accountable for cases of cyber-bullying and other such activity is a reducing of human accountability. The ultimate responsibility and ethical burden should reside with the person who posts the negative or harmful language – the person “guilty” of the bullying. To rely on the creators of social media sites like Myspace and Facebook to determine when social communication crosses the line into bullying is akin to challenging the right to free speech. A business, like a government, shouldn’t have the right to tell a person what he or she can or cannot say. Similarly, although I am an African American I cannot condemn the right of followers of the Ku Klux Klan to march in the streets when that same right is what helped leaders of the Civil Rights movement spread their message of equality. The right to free speech is what draws people to this country. The right to voice our opinions should not be restricted because a few choose to use today’s most popular platform – social media – to speak in a way that some consider harmful to others. In the end, the words that come out of someone’s mouth or that is typed by someone’s fingers are the responsibility of that person.
###
No comments:
Post a Comment