Is outing a public figure ok now?

Annasopra

I noticed somewhere that there was a bit of an outing of a public figure.

Do you think outing a public figure is ok now?

J_E

I don't think outing anyone else without their involvement is really fair, period.

Pawwed Rig

I think it is the persons private business and can't see how it is in the public interest to 'out' them.
It also reeks of homophobia as it implies that it is something that needs to be 'outed'. You never hear of a politician 'outed' as hetrosexual for example.

Annasopra

I think if a person is using their position in a homophobic way then its fine. I just found this outing quite odd really.

Pawwed Rig

If it is someone preaching against homosexuality who is being hypocritical then I do think the public interest is served.
Have you a link to an article or anything like that?

Annasopra

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

If it is someone preaching against homosexuality who is being hypocritical then I do think the public interest is served.
Have you a link to an article or anything like that?

You may have misunderstood. The outing that I saw was not of someone publicly condemning homosexuality or preaching against it. I'm not linking to any article as I think this outing is quite unfair.

AdFundum

Outing one of your ilk in the demi-monde of old was the gravest of transgressions. I consider it a despicable action. Other people's secrets are theirs and theirs alone, to tell.

Annasopra

AdFundum wrote: »

Outing one of your ilk in the demi-monde of old was the gravest of transgressions. I consider it a despicable action. Other people's secrets are theirs and theirs alone, to tell.

Oh I think outing a public figure who is specifically homophobic in their use of power or influence is perfectly fine.

This isnt a case of that but it got me thinking that perhaps outing is more acceptable than it once was.

Vojera

No, not at all.

Part of me does feel that people with influence have a bit of an obligation to be out and show the world that we're all just normal people (mostly :P ), but of course that obligation is just in my imagination, they don't actually owe that to anyone (other than themselves, should they so choose). But I imagine how much easier my own coming out would have been had there been more visible lesbian role models, and then I think about how much easier my own coming out must have been compared to generations before mine, and I hope that as people like Ellen Page (whose speech has been on my mind this week) add their voices to ours, that in the future it'll get even easier.

But, back on topic, I don't think it's acceptable to out anyone, public figure or not. Take the case of a public figure whose friends and close family already know the truth and respectfully keep that information private. It's a sad truth that by outing that person I may jeopardise his or her career. I may be forcing this person to confront something in a very public way which they are not yet ready to deal with. And really, a person's private life is just that. No one, whatever point on the spectrum they inhabit, should have to disclose information about who they would prefer to sleep with to strangers.

In my day to day life, I'm out. I'm civilly-partnered (what a terrible phrase), I talk about my wife at work, I wear my wedding band with pride, all my family and friends know I'm a lesbian. But because of stereotypes people have in their minds, no one ever guesses I'm gay so the decision to share that information is mine. If someone was to take out a global announcement that told everyone on the planet about my sexuality, I wouldn't care that people knew, but I would care that the choice of whether to share or not was taken away from me. No one else can decide that for me, so I can't decide for anyone else.

Ten of Swords

No it is not OK to out someone, public figure or otherwise, but it will invariably happen as long as people are interested in gossip. If someone is comfortable enough to come out then fine, but I can think of few reasons where an outing is fair or in the public interest. If they are using their position to spread hate speech then maybe it is in the public interest but more often than not it is simply used as a tactic to destroy that person, dressed up as 'serving the public interest'.

I have no sympathy for the magazine that published photographs of a certain politician recently. They were fined €20,000 for doing it and rightly so I believe.

There are some people outed against their will but it is perhaps inevitable, such as George Michael. He was outed by the police simply doing their job, they didn't set out to do it but the nature of the charges against him at the time made it a certainty.

ninty9er

Just because someone hasn't come out doesn't mean they are closeted, if the certain politician is who I think it is then his orientation isn't particularly a secret.

If you were to look at the Dáil and Seanad, or even your local council, how many members could you place as being married without researching it?

floggg

J_E wrote: »

I don't think outing anyone else without their involvement is really fair, period.

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

You may have misunderstood. The outing that I saw was not of someone publicly condemning homosexuality or preaching against it. I'm not linking to any article as I think this outing is quite unfair.

Without context, its difficult to comment.

I definitely think if somebody tries to make my sex life a political issue, then theirs is fair game.

Otherwise, I would tend to disagree with it, though I think its not black and white.

I think in some contexts, I think the media's don't ask, don't tell approach to some celebrities is hypocritical and kind of homophobic. Many straight public figures private and love lives are treated as fair game, and they will report the smallest of stories.

However, there are many public figures who's homosexuality is an open secret, and yet the media will just completely ignore that side of their life and play along with the don't ask don't tell PR policy.

Its a double standard and kind of treats it as something taboo, and makes it a bigger issue than it needs to be.

Its obviously not an easy position, and the people involved do have a right to privacy. I don't know that I think people should be outed as such, but ideally I would like gay peoples love lives treated in the same way as their straight counterparts.

One eyed Jack

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

I noticed somewhere that there was a bit of an outing of a public figure.

Do you think outing a public figure is ok now?

No. Never. I personally think there's never any justification for it. I think all people are entitled to have their privacy respected in public discourse, and I wouldn't think there could be anything served by outing someone, no matter how much of a hypocrite I may personally think they are, I'd think a lot less of the person who thought it was ok to out them.

In cases like this I'm always reminded of Harvey Milk. As much admiration as I have for the man and for all he achieved, I always felt his legacy was somewhat tarnished by his willingness to throw someone under the bus so to speak to advance his own cause -

Milk's role as a representative of San Francisco's gay community expanded during this period. On September 22, 1975, President Gerald Ford, while visiting San Francisco, walked from his hotel to his car. In the crowd, Sara Jane Moore raised a gun to shoot him. A former Marine who had been walking by grabbed her arm as the gun discharged toward the pavement.[53][54] The bystander was Oliver "Bill" Sipple, who had left Milk's ex-lover Joe Campbell years before, prompting Campbell's suicide attempt. The national spotlight was on him immediately. On psychiatric disability leave from the military, Sipple refused to call himself a hero and did not want his sexuality disclosed.[55] Milk, however, took advantage of the opportunity to illustrate his cause that public perception of gay people would be improved if they came out of the closet. He told a friend: "It's too good an opportunity. For once we can show that gays do heroic things, not just all that ca-ca about molesting children and hanging out in bathrooms."[56] Milk contacted a newspaper.[57]

Several days later Herb Caen, a columnist at The San Francisco Chronicle, exposed Sipple as gay and a friend of Milk's. The announcement was picked up by national newspapers, and Milk's name was included in many of the stories. Time magazine named Milk as a leader in San Francisco's gay community.[55] Sipple, however, was besieged by reporters, as was his family. His mother, a staunch Baptist in Detroit, now refused to speak to him. Although he had been involved with the gay community for years, even participating in Gay Pride events, Sipple sued the Chronicle for invasion of privacy.[58] President Ford sent Sipple a note of thanks for saving his life.[57] Milk said that Sipple's sexual orientation was the reason he received only a note, rather than an invitation to the White House.[57][note 5]

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvey_Milk

lottpaul

Generally I would say that outing someone is wrong and an intrusion on the right to a private life.

That said, if a person was e.g. campaigning/speaking/preaching against certain gay rights in public while leading a very different private life then I think that such hypocrisy needs to be exposed.
I would say the same about someone who e.g.ranted about the public paying all of their taxes while dodging them personally or someone who moralised about marital fidelity while having an extramarital affair themselves.

In all of the above though it's the public hypocrisy that should be exposed and challenged, not their private sexual, financial or other lives.

One eyed Jack

lottpaul wrote: »

Generally I would say that outing someone is wrong and an intrusion on the right to a private life.

That said, if a person was e.g. campaigning/speaking/preaching against certain gay rights in public while leading a very different private life then I think that such hypocrisy needs to be exposed.
I would say the same about someone who e.g.ranted about the public paying all of their taxes while dodging them personally or someone who moralised about marital fidelity while having an extramarital affair themselves.

In all of the above though it's the public hypocrisy that should be exposed and challenged, not their private sexual, financial or other lives.

But in order to expose their public hypocrisy, you would have to expose what you thought you knew about their private lives. In financial matters this would be easily proven with a written record of some sort, but their private morality with regard to their sexuality? There could be every chance you might have it wrong, and that's when "outing" could be dangerous and cause unintended peripheral damage to other people.

I don't know the specifics of the case Joey may be using to pose a hypothetical question, but the thought had crossed my mind in the run up to the marriage equality referendum that some people within the "Yes" campaign could indeed adopt American "personality politics" (we saw it in the Presidential Campaign with David Norris, and we all know how that went), and I would just like to think that rather than have the campaign descend into a mud slinging contest, that we could conduct ourselves with integrity and compassion, even when we have the opportunity to take a cheap shot in an effort to silence the opposition.

I would think most people would be of the opinion that while it's an easy thing to do (how many of us here know people who are married and in the closet? I won't say I know plenty, but of those whom I have talked to, they're still human beings at the end of the day, and nothing is so black and white), it's despicable, is the only word I can think of for anyone that'd do it to another human being.

Their hypocrisy, while despicable in itself, wouldn't justify stooping to their level. I can't say I'd feel any better for it anyway and I don't think it's achieve much, and quite possibly have the opposite effect and backfire spectacularly. If I object to someone imposing their morality on me, am I any different if I impose my morality on them? I'd rather they came to that realisation themselves and were able to be supported should they ever choose to make that private part of themselves public knowledge, of their own accord, when they were ready, not when I thought it would be to my advantage to out them.

Cantremember

It depends if the public figure is using their position to undermine or attack lgbt people and the move to equality. If they aren't their privacy is privacy within normal legal limits. I don't know of anyone in such a position. It's curious to see this thread as we approach a referendum.

lottpaul

Cantremember wrote: »

It depends if the public figure is using their position to undermine or attack lgbt people and the move to equality. If they aren't their privacy is privacy within normal legal limits. I don't know of anyone in such a position. It's curious to see this thread as we approach a referendum.

I agree - as the campaign heats up there may be more discussions like this but in most cases they are diversionary tactics designed to distract from the real issue.
The important thing is to keep focus and not get carried away on tangents. Groups like the RC church are already mobilising - 2 friends phoned last night having just listened to "motherhood and apple pie" sermons about the lovliness of tradition in the family and the need for stability in an everchanging world. Now, I wonder where that could be leading,,,,,,,?

Cantremember

lottpaul wrote: »

I agree - as the campaign heats up there may be more discussions like this but in most cases they are diversionary tactics designed to distract from the real issue.
The important thing is to keep focus and not get carried away on tangents. Groups like the RC church are already mobilising - 2 friends phoned last night having just listened to "motherhood and apple pie" sermons about the lovliness of tradition in the family and the need for stability in an everchanging world. Now, I wonder where that could be leading,,,,,,,?

That's an interesting "talking point"! I've suspected that there is a social media campaign running along lines of that for some time. Trying to drop things into all sorts of discussions about traditions and such. It's coupled with wonderful vignettes of "community" and of course "respects" humanity and is very "welcoming". The rebranding of religious bigotry is going on whole scale. No one should assume that because battles were won in the past this one will. The low turnout in the Seanad referendum shows that nothing should be taken for granted.

This thread makes me curious because if you look at other current affairs social media websites you will see that there are hints flying that there may be some clerics who may face a backlash.

Aard

I think it's more of a US phenomenon atm. Where legislators will vote against extending rights to gay people.....and then post neck-down pics of themselves on Grinder.

That's a completely different situation to the Milk example above.

Annasopra

I've already stated this isnt about someone taking an anti gay rights stand.

That said I completely agree with outing politicians who are actively oppressing lgbt rights through politics.

syklops

And in other news David Beckham is straight! :eek:

eviltwin

I don't think its appropriate to divulge any personal information without the consent of the person involved. Its their story to tell if and when they want it. I can see the argument about anti gay activists but it still doesn't sit well with me. Its a terrible position to put someone in.

One eyed Jack

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

I've already stated this isnt about someone taking an anti gay rights stand.

That said I completely agree with outing politicians who are actively oppressing lgbt rights through politics.

My fault for tearing off on that tangent there. I did a bit of googling just now to get the context for your original question, and I can't see any reason why it would ever be ok to out someone who has chosen not to make their sexuality or their relationships a public talking point.

It just screams "gossip" to me anyway, as though that person's sexuality should be a public talking point. Should it, really? Not if anyone wants to argue at the same time that "there's nothing to see here" with regard to their own sexuality or relationships.

I've always thought of people who liked to gossip about other people as small minded and ignorant, regardless of their sexuality.

Cantremember

One eyed Jack wrote: »

My fault for tearing off on that tangent there. I did a bit of googling just now to get the context for your original question, and I can't see any reason why it would ever be ok to out someone who has chosen not to make their sexuality or their relationships a public talking point.

It just screams "gossip" to me anyway, as though that person's sexuality should be a public talking point. Should it, really? Not if anyone wants to argue at the same time that "there's nothing to see here" with regard to their own sexuality or relationships.

I've always thought of people who liked to gossip about other people as small minded and ignorant, regardless of their sexuality.

As far as I can see there's general agreement here that if the person isn't taking a public role to undermine lgbt people then privacy is privacy. The thread expanded to consider the other case and there opinion is divided. It will be a curious byroad of the upcoming referendum if it does happen. As I said if you look at other sites you may see hints of something. I get a sense that there may be something brewing.

Annasopra

Cantremember wrote: »

As far as I can see there's general agreement here that if the person isn't taking a public role to undermine lgbt people then privacy is privacy. The thread expanded to consider the other case and there opinion is divided. It will be a curious byroad of the upcoming referendum if it does happen. As I said if you look at other sites you may see hints of something. I get a sense that there may be something brewing.

I havent seen any of these hints.

marienbad

I know it may be not quite the same but I will share it anyway . I am an alcoholic and an active member of AA and I have been for decades and I don't give a flying fcuk who knows about it . But that is now . In my early days I was paranoid about it . One of the cornerstones of AA is to respect the anonymity of others .And it was been given that time and space that enable me to thread my own path.

AA has taught me that unless someone is actively doing harm to others what they do in their own private lives is there own business . We just never know the full story

Cantremember

marienbad wrote: »

I know it may be not quite the same but I will share it anyway . I am an alcoholic and an active member of AA and I have been for decades and I don't give a flying fcuk who knows about it . But that is now . In my early days I was paranoid about it . One of the cornerstones of AA is to respect the anonymity of others .And it was been given that time and space that enable me to thread my own path.

AA has taught me that unless someone is actively doing harm to others what they do in their own private lives is there own business . We just never know the full story

That is what others have said about undermining lgbt people.

Cantremember

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

I havent seen any of these hints.

Nonetheless, they are there.

One eyed Jack

Cantremember wrote: »

As far as I can see there's general agreement here that if the person isn't taking a public role to undermine lgbt people then privacy is privacy. The thread expanded to consider the other case and there opinion is divided. It will be a curious byroad of the upcoming referendum if it does happen. As I said if you look at other sites you may see hints of something. I get a sense that there may be something brewing.

Seems a bit "reds under the bed", no?

I mean, if you're talking about members of the clergy, then no, I don't think it's right to go outing them either. Many of them struggle with their own conscience in private, and put on a public face where they must be seen to tow the party line as such.

With regard to your lottpaul's earlier post, yes, the Catholic Bishops Conference did indeed publish literature about a week before Christmas (I suspect the timing was deliberate) about The Meaning of Marriage which was left on a table at the back of the church (there's a link to the PDF in that link), but there was no preaching done during the mass itself.

That letter I linked to would be a good outlay of how most Catholics feel about the Church's stance on the issue, and I don't think there would be any good to be served by outing members of the clergy who in private may also disagree with the Church's stance on the issue.


EDIT: Apologies Cantremember, that was lottpaul's post I was thinking of.

aunt aggie

I knew nothing about any of this until I read this thread.. but I've gotten enough hints just by reading through the comments...

Honestly I don't think coming out as gay or lesbian should have any impact on someone's career, but its their decision when they tell people.

And I feel like we're the nosy old ladies whispering in the corner of boards....

Pawwed Rig

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I mean, if you're talking about members of the clergy, then no, I don't think it's right to go outing them either. Many of them struggle with their own conscience in private, and put on a public face where they must be seen to tow the party line as such.

if they are pontificating from the pulpit but at the same time having their little bit on the side then I would have no problem calling them a hypocrite. They cause huge harm to alot of people from their 'choice' of career.

Cantremember

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Seems a bit "reds under the bed", no?

I'll repeat again, I don't know.

Annasopra

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I don't think there would be any good to be served by outing members of the clergy who in private may also disagree with the Church's stance on the issue.

Indeed but I would see absolutely nothing wrong with outing a member of the clergy who was actively preaching anti LGBT stuff from the pulpit.

marienbad

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Indeed but I would see absolutely nothing wrong with outing a member of the clergy who was actively preaching anti LGBT stuff from the pulpit.

Is it really that simple ?

Pawwed Rig

marienbad wrote: »

Is it really that simple ?

I would say Yes

marienbad

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

I would say Yes

I wish life were that black and white . I always thought what Peter Tatchell used to do in the 80's was simply appalling.

People get themselves into such a tangle that in many cases it is just not that simple .

Annasopra

marienbad wrote: »

Is it really that simple ?

I think so yes

marienbad

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

I think so yes

Why do you or any individual get to make that decision ?

Aard

Eh sorry, but if a clergy member is preaching anti-gay stuff that has a negative impact on other people. Then if he's a closet-case himself, really he's leaving himself open to being "outed". People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

marienbad

Aard wrote: »

Eh sorry, but if a clergy member is preaching anti-gay stuff that has a negative impact on other people. Then if he's a closet-case himself, really he's leaving himself open to being "outed". People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

Eh no actually, life is not that simple . What if that person has a family , kids in school ,parents should they be made to suffer on a someone else's point of principle ?

AdFundum

I think if we gays begin appointing ourselves as the hypocrisy police, all our glass houses will collapse. Is it not enough to just understand that someone is being hypocritical without having to burn them for it. Someone preaching from the pulpit and having sordid gay sex on the side is obviously conflicted and in a bit of turmoil. In fact, the very act of outing him/her as fellating ex camera after mass not only puts him on trial but also puts the sex on trial too. You have to be careful about these things.

Aard

marienbad wrote: »

Eh no actually, life is not that simple . What if that person has a family , kids in school ,parents should they be made to suffer on a someone else's point of principle ?

Maybe he should stop preaching anti-gay stuff then?

One eyed Jack

Aard wrote: »

Eh sorry, but if a clergy member is preaching anti-gay stuff that has a negative impact on other people. Then if he's a closet-case himself, really he's leaving himself open to being "outed". People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

What purpose does that serve though, realistically speaking?

I mean, I get that hearing homophobic sentiments from someone who is themselves homosexual is seen as hypocrisy, but if we are to campaign for tolerance and understanding for LGBT people, then that person is just as much a part of that group, and deserves the same protection of the group as anyone else.

I would think it hypocrisy on our part if we were to out that person whilst at the same time speaking ourselves about tolerance, understanding and respect for LGBT people. I would think it would be a better strategy to concentrate our efforts on promoting a positive image of LGBT people in society rather than allowing for LGBT people to be seen as spiteful and capable of turning on one of their own so to speak.

Is this about creating a better society for all people, or is it just about petty point scoring and moral one-upmanship?

I really don't think it's "that simple" at all.

marienbad

Aard wrote: »

Maybe he should stop preaching anti-gay stuff then?

He may not have too much of a choice , people start out in life with the best of intentions but gradually find themselves enmeshed in a web of (some one say) deceit . But extricated themselves is not as simple as you make out.

The truth is a very overrated commodity .

If I was to follow you argument to its ultimate conclusion then every LGBT teen in school should be outed because by staying in they makes life harded for those that are out ,the bigger the numbers the stronger the group.

If it was a legislator drafting and ramming through anti LGBT laws that would be one thing , but someone just trying to get by , not a chance.

That is just my take on it , but as it dos'nt affect me directly I will leave it at that.

Aard

marienbad wrote: »

If it was a legislator drafting and ramming through anti LGBT laws that would be one thing , but someone just trying to get by , not a chance.

Somebody preaching hate is not "someone just trying to get by". They're actively going out of their way to spread hatred to a large audience.

Cantremember

Extraordinary thread. A nerve has been hit, not just touched. I'm intrigued.

Annasopra

Cantremember wrote: »

Extraordinary thread. A nerve has been hit, not just touched. I'm intrigued.

Whats extraordinary about it?

marienbad

Aard wrote: »

Somebody preaching hate is not "someone just trying to get by". They're actively going out of their way to spread hatred to a large audience.

You are always going for the extreme , most people aren't like that . Kindness and understanding I have always found is better then cruelty .

Cantremember

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Whats extraordinary about it?

The passionate reaction in defending possible LGBT public figures who may speak in condemnation of LGBT equality. The description of gay sex as being "put on trial" if some cleric is caught "fellating ex camera" after mass is an extraordinary claim. I am intrigued!

Aard

marienbad wrote: »

Kindness and understanding I have always found is better then cruelty .

Say that to the anti-gay preachers.

marienbad

Aard wrote: »

Say that to the anti-gay preachers.

I do.