Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/

["Dallas Smith" <dallas.smith AT pobox.com>]

Wouldn't it be the "ethical" journalist's responsibility to say that the
unrelated information doesn't need to be published, not the police?  If I
were writing a story about your murder, and it's obvoius that the gay porn
websites are not related in any way, I would think I would leave that out of
the story, because it's private and unrelated.  I don't think I can be sued
for inflicting emotional distress on you since you're dead, but I think your
family can sue for emotional distress on them.  Maybe I'm mixing up privacy
and libel.

Another thing that bugs me is that if it weren't for the connection that
Chandra had to the senator, we wouldn't even know about this.  She would be
just another missing girl on the other side of the country...

Just my $.02,
Dallas

----- Original Message -----
From: "David Wagoner" <dbwagoner AT yahoo.com>
To: "InterNetWorkers" <internetworkers AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
Sent: Monday, July 23, 2001 11:51 AM
Subject: [internetworkers] RE: internetworkers digest: July 21, 2001


> That's an interesting argument, but I don't feel the
> same way.
>
> Let's say, for example, that I am a married man with
> children and I get murdered.  Let's also assume that I
> am a closet homosexual and frequently look at gay porn
> on the web but I have not revealed any of this to
> family or friends.  Now, if I am murdered then the
> authorities can perform an autopsy on my body
> searching for murder clues but they wouldn't know
> about my gay tendencies.  However, if they searched my
> computer they would certainly find out and most likely
> leak private information that I did not want
> publicized.  That's where I see a distinction in the
> privacy issue- searching my body is different than
> searching my mind (i.e., my computer in this case).
>
>
> david