To Retract Or Not To Retract?
After over 920 blog posts on www.subwaystate.com I have finally been asked to take one down! It is a re-posting of a conversation with some commentary. Names were NOT included, nor were any indicators thereof. But the person with whom the conversation was had wants it taken down, asking “why did you”, “how could you” and saying that after this I can’t possibly be trusted. I disagree to the reactionary stance and declaration of my trust being unfit and have not yet responded. Note: the person only contacted me online – didn’t call me. What do you think about this? I’m not telling you which article it is. I want your point of view from the unwashed perspective. Give me your journalistic opinion. I already have my own and I am gonna let this sit awhile before responding to them, I want this person to thoroughly think about what they are asking me to do.
December 16th, 2009 at 10:45 am
If people know you, then they know shit may get posted or pics may be taken.. Like those tardy for the party pics.. haha I still have those.
Flip side your network of friends are all connected and even if it seems like it doesn’t call that person out, they may be self conscious that someone in the network circle may find out.
December 22nd, 2009 at 1:12 pm
This is an interesting question.
My first thought is: You have a right to free speech as long as it doesn’t conflict with the rights of others.
My second thought is: The person in question feels that their rights were somehow violated (right to privacy it seems?) because you published an electronic conversation you had with them that they ‘assumed’ would be kept private.
Well we all know what happens when we assume things. There is nothing that says you can’t take a conversation someone voluntarily has with you in an electronic medium and publish it to the world. HOWEVER, and I could be mistaken here, but there seems to be an unstated agreement between two people communicating that their conversation will remain private (barring actually *telling* a third-party what was discussed). Actually taking the conversation verbatim to the public, in my opinion, is a violation of that unspoken agreement.
Perhaps I shouldn’t base my opinion on the subjet of ‘unspoken agreements’ but there is a part of me that still believes that some things don’t need to be explicitly laid out for them to be understood. For instance, I never would have thought it necessary to explicitly question potential boyfriends/partners as to whether they are actually single and if not to further inquire into the details of their arrangement with their boyfriend/partner. I have been singed too many times to go any other route than full disclosure even if I have to be the one leading the interrogation.
I’m angered and upset by the fact that I have to question other peoples’ motive and intentions, but I’ve come to understand that’s just the way this sort of thing works.
That said, I do NOT believe that I should start out every electronic conversation with the phrase: “You’re not going to post any of this conversation where it can be read by the public, are you? I shouldn’t have to say this but it’s happened to me before and even though most people understand that isn’t how this goes, some don’t, so I want to make sure by getting it out into the open.”
That’s my opinion, journalistic or not.