|
Excellent post, Ray . Cohesive and well thought out. I am wondering through all the wild emotional reactions, "Where's the real threat????" So JW posts a "reward" for info on "Pluvia". So what? It wasn't "Dead or Alive". I suppose if someone were posting anonymously for valid reasons, they would be harmed by exposure. For example, someone with HIV who didn't want their boss or neighbors to know. Or a whistleblower. If it turns out that "Pluvia" is trying to depress the price of a stock so that he or some hedge fund can profit, and he gets exposed, well, tough noogies. Happens all the time in the real world, too. I think betty ann poe made one of the best comments here, quoting Milton, that there is a difference between freedom and license. People who feel that presumed anonymity gives them license to do whatever they want, legal and moral, or otherwise, deserve being exposed for violating a trust which we implicitly grant by accepting their right to privacy and thus assuming they will reciprocate by using that priviledge responsibly, not to hurt others for their own gain. Likewise, I believe that JW is deserving of opprobrium if he violates the privacy of another member of our community for his own gains. I think the issue of a bounty or reward clouds the picture here. Would it be okay if someone, say, ratted out "Pluvia" to JW and he then threatened to "out' him? |
