Shame on Washington Blade and Kevin Naff!

[cynatnite]

So by outing people who made personal decisions to stay in the closet he thinks he has somehow done the gay community a favor. :eyes:

Does he consider these people or their private lives? Does he consider their families? Does he consider their careers? Does he not believe that people have an inherent right to privacy?

No, he considers none of these at all. He somehow believes that a few more gay celebs will somehow empower gay rights. He thinks they're protecting their incomes and images. Does he know this for a fact? What proof does he provide? Conversations? Discussions with friends of theirs?

Kevin Naff set himself up to be a judge over whether or not they have the right to their private lives. He put himself on a pedestal and wagged his finger at them for making a private decision that was none of his business.

People lead their lives how they see fit. Many may not like it or approve it. But it is still their lives. The RW thinks they can somehow tell people how to live their private lives and Kevin Naff has set himself with them by declaring to others they should live their lives as HE sees fit.

He decries how much good it would do the Gay and Lesbian community by a few more people coming out. While there is still a long ways to go, these celebs he outed without any consideration at all, the impact won't be seen with the ushering in of equal rights for all.

The effect won't be seen in the news. The effect will be in their homes and at their jobs. The effect may be he gives more shameless fodder for tabloids whose only purpose is to make a buck at the expense of people's misery.

Shame on Kevin Naff not only for his hypocrisy, but for his unfeeling judgment he passed on other people for not living their lives the way HE thinks they should. Shame on Kevin Naff for the damage he has done not only to these people but also to the cause he claims to represent.

This was written in response to an editorial which Raw Story carried.

http://washblade.com/2005/10-21/view/editorial/come-out.cfm

Flame away.

[SteppingRazor]

1. I can think of one instance when a reporter should out a gay man or woman:

When that person is a politician with a poor voting record on gay rights.

Other than that, it's a personal decision and the media should stay out of it.

[cynatnite]

2. I don't believe in any instance...

I don't think outing a politician would make a difference in the gay rights struggle at all. It would only be an act of retaliation and serves no good purpose.

Plus, I'm really big on right to privacy and no matter what we think, everyone is entitled to live their lives as they see fit even if we disagree with it or find it hypocritical.

[mestup]

4. One good (if ironic) thing I've seen happen...

..re: Spokane Mayor James West and his outing from the local newspaper. West had a long career in the WA legislature of creating and backing rabid anti-gay laws.

In a conservative city, the most fascinating thing exposure of his duplicity did was this: tons of citizen LTTEs with the same theme: "I don't mind at all that he's gay, I mind that he attacked gays and pretended he was straight."

It may be an odd way for some to confront and/or overcome a prejudice, but it sure worked.

[SteppingRazor]

5. I'm really, really massively huge on the right to privacy...

for private citizens. Politicians are public figures. Both legally and ethically, there's a difference.

Second, if a politician is gay but voting strongly against gay rights, it's evidence of hypocrisy and lying, and should be brought to bear for the simple reason that, if politicians lie about one thing, they're probably lying about others.

I'm thinking specifically of a friend of mine who wrote a column outing Republican rep. Mark Foley. Here's a bit from his follow-up column. The whole series is worth reading:

"It was like putting a perfectly decent child into the world only to see her pimped out on the street or, worse, soullessly shilling for the man in some sterile corporate suite. I had hoped that my May 8 column on Congressman Mark Foley, which stated that the Lake Worth Republican is gay, would do some good. But things spiraled out of control, hitting a low point May 27, when the issue was discussed in America's gulag for independent thought -- a Fox News channel studio.

More on that later. Of course, a part of me wanted to whip up some good clean controversy, but I wanted it to be constructive, not constrictive. The column was purely political, a look at the motives that drive Foley's voting gay-rights record, which had become controversial in his campaign for the U.S. Senate. I felt that telling the truth about Foley presented a good test for the Republican Party: Is it really -- with its Christian Right/Rick Santorum wing -- as inclusive as it claims to be? Is it ready for an openly gay Senate candidate in Florida?

These seem worthy questions. And there were other reasons for writing the story, some of them possibly more important. For one, his coming out just might help, in a small way, a minority group that is still hated and discriminated against by the ignoranti. Isn't it Foley's duty, as a high-ranking public official, to be truthful about who he is? Doesn't his avoidance only perpetuate the perception that there is something terribly wrong with being gay?

The column at first sparked a good debate in the gay press and on the Internet. All was well. Then, on May 22, Foley held a conference call with reporters from several large Florida daily newspapers to declare that he would make no declarations about his sexual orientation. And he denounced my story and all "rumors" about him as "revolting and unforgivable." He said he wasn't going to be "dragged into the gutter" by "rumormongers." And he decried it all as the work of evildoing Democratic activists. "

http://www.newtimesbpb.com/issues/2003-06-05/news/norman.html

[cynatnite]

8. I've thought a lot about this since being involved in long discussion...

on DU concerning this.

I'm still struggling with it. I find it so distasteful that there is this need to get into people's private lives no matter the public ones they lead.

Is it really lying, though? I know in some might see it that by virtue of omission it is. If they said publicly they were not gay when in fact they were, yeah...that's lying and people should know.

As far as I know this hasn't happened so the line is really vague for me. Making a choice to keep their private lives private doesn't always equate to lying.

This is one gray area where I think it will take some time for me to figure out.

I'm not convinced, though, that it will help gay rights much.

[Seansky]

19. yeah, here too. see my msgs. below..

[Democrats_win]

3. Anderson Cooper? Really, it does depend on who you're outing.

I agree, Kevin Naff is barking up the wrong tree.

He's being selfish here and not obeying this guide: "your rights stop at your nose." Ethically, perhaps they should come out and join the fight rather than let others fight. But that's their choice.

I've always thought that if you're gay and working for homophobes, then you're living in a glass house and you're throwing rocks. Guess what, don't expect people to respect your privacy.

[donheld]

24. I've always thought that if you're gay and working for homophobes

Damn right. They I say out them now.

[cally]

6. I haven't made up my mind on this issue

I'm upset that individuals private life matter in public life. If a man or woman chooses to keep their lives private then I believe they should be able to do so. Unfortunately, the RW has used their version of family values and intolerance against the Dems while leading lives of hypocrisy. I don't see a good way to stop them without pointing out their hypocrisy and dishonesty. I applauded when Henry Hyde's affair was reported, when Livingston had to resign, and when Gingrich's endless wives and scandals were discussed. I also can't help but laugh when leaders of a party that is held up as more family oriented while they push bigotry and hatred of the GLBT community are outed as members of that community. Still, I think my seeing humor and wanting retribution shows my own crassness and vindictiveness. I think your opinion is correct but I can't help enjoying discomforting some of these hypocrites.

[KharmaTrain]

36. Private Lives Are Always A Gotcha Game

Let's turn this issue in a different direction. Instead of Smith being gay, it's revealed he's a toe sucker or some other "deviant" behavior. Look at the obsession people had with Clinton's hummers and the parsing of if it was sex or not. Sheesh.

I can't think of a public figure who isn't attacked sexually for being either too much or too little of something. I don't see how this connects with lying about starting a war or the destruction of our personal liberties.

Smith works for an operation that spreads a homophobic message, but that's just one part of a bigger package here. He also works for an operation that supports the restriction of women's rights, plays racial politics and class warfare as modus operendi. It's the bigger picture here rather than the small one.

Smith's "outting" won't bring Faux News down, just cause a lot of worthless distraction away from the real corruption, hypocrisies and crimes that truly affect our lives.

Peace...

[Seansky]

7. cynatnite, I am not gay and do not pretend to know what it is to be one

but I do have gay friends and do not see them in a different light than I see my straight friends.

From the outside and as a double minority person who has not gotten jobs at times for being one, I do understand your point, and I also understand Naff's point.

So don't take the following as an offense. We all have the right to our privacy, but we also give some of that away when we choose to follow a public life. And I beg you not to scream at me, but I have had this conversation with my gay friends and find a hugh dilemma in this issue.

From the outside, I see two issues: First, I tend to find it hypocrite that those who choose a public life and make tons of money at our expense expect the level of privacy the rest of us intentionally protect. My point is that nowdays it is obvious that one can't separate public persona from private life, regardless of who and what they are or what they do for a living. It is, like everything else, a trade off. We should respect their privacy, but everyone knows paparazzi livehood takes priority to media than privacy rights...Regardles of whether that's right or wrong, it is here to stay.

Second, it seems to me that a public person being in the closet does more damage and further insults the gay community because it comes across to the straight people as if they are ashamed of being gay and that perception further gives ammunition to the anti-gay people to attack them.

And, it is rather naive for any public person to expect that their secret would stay such when exposing them makes so much money.

When Black people stood for there rights to get rid of segregation, they did it not only accepting that they were blacks, but demanding publicly and openly that these rights were theirs in the first place. I know you might say that there is no correlation between the blacks and gays, however, I would disagree. By openly being proud of what we are, our strenght grows exponentially.

From the outside, it does seem that when one pursues fame, one should accept the consequences and prices to pay for it, just as we have to accept all the consequences and prices we have to pay for any choices we make professionally and personally. And for famous gays or any other famous person, it is the fact (even though I disagree with it)nothing can be kept private for ever if it can generate more attention and money for the media...We see it with all kind of famous people and find it difficult to believe that famous gays would be an exception of that reality just because they choose to stay in the closet.

Please don't take this as an offensive (long) commment.

[cynatnite]

10. I don't believe people should have to sacrifice their privacy...

I blame that on a media and a public who thinks they have a right to know a public person's private life. They don't. We don't have that right.

Just as no one has a right to know about my private life except for what I allow to be seen.

Celebs and others who lead public lives have families and friends who didn't sign up for such intrusiveness. I can accept that public figures give up a certain amount of privacy...but all of it or even what they choose to keep private?

Blacks can't be private about the color of their skin and it's a matter of dealing what they are forced to deal with. Gays have the luxury of choice in this issue...whether to be public or private. I say let them have their choice.

I'm not gay either and some of my friends disagree with me on this as well. :)

[Ian David]

15. I propose an experiment. Let's invent a fake celebrity and "out" them!

Here's what to do:

1) Register a domain name.

2) Create head-shots and a fake "filmography." Or, we could invent a fake politician running for a non-existent elected office. For example, "Ficus Doe, a Republican running for Counselor-at-Large in Dover, Pennsylvania."

3) Spend a few months occasionally discussing them on message boards, usenet, etc. "Hey, did you see John Doe's guest appearance on Veronica Mars last night? If you blinked, you would have missed it. I was very disappointed after all the hype about it before."

4) Send press releases to entertainment media with the fake celebrity's name in it. Many outlets will post press releases verbatim online with minimal screening, even if they don't go to print. Google loves this.

5) Once the fictitious person has maybe 20 or more hits on google, let's "out" them.

Now, I'm thinking there are two paths we can take:

a) Write a lot about them while still saying nothing about their positions on gay rights.

or

b) Just re-write some of Alan Keye's Greatest Moments and put them into our sockpuppet's mouth.

Can we have this whole thing scheduled to climax on April First?

[Seansky]

18. I agree, but how do you propose that solved? Do you really believe

it can even be solve? It seems that to grant celebs and famous people their right to privacy, the entire media industry should be censured and never publish gossip or anything like that about celebs and public people. How do you suggest that to be addressed? That was my point, this is, unfortunatelly, a reality of our society and seems there is no a solution to enforce protection of privacy for celebs and public by the media besides those individuals ability to sue, but by then the damage has been done.

On edit: And, that goes both way. Fox is constantly damaging celebs and famous people.

[cynatnite]

20. No, I don't expect it ever to be solved...

Censorship would be the only way and we all know how abhorrent that is.

The only way is for each individual to have some restraint and respect for a person's right to privacy...as if that would really happen.

I totally agree with you.

[Ian David]

9. If it was 1943 & you found out Goebbels was Jewish, would you tell Hitler?

Oh, sorry.

I just compared someone to Hitler.

I guess I ended constructive debate on the subject.

For what it's worth, I respect your opinion and I think you make some very good points.

I just disagree.

[cynatnite]

11. Should someone tell the world that Hitler may be Jewish?

There is speculation. :)

I think this is a worthwhile discussion and I appreciate the perspectives.

Thanks!

[Ian David]

13. Anderson Cooper-- closeted hetero pretending to be gay?

"Cooper, the popular CNN anchor, coyly refused to answer “the question” in a recent lengthy profile in New York magazine. Though long rumored to be gay — he once suggested he is gay in comments made at a GLAAD Media Awards event — Cooper chooses the closet over honesty."

More:
http://washblade.com/2005/10-21/view/editorial/come-out.cfm

Damn him, pretending to be gay so he could get an award from GLAAD?

It looks like that is the issue. Jodi Foster, Sean Hayes, etc... pretending to be gay.

Maybe they're really crab people?

I mean, if O'Reilly were gay, I say out him.

If Dennis Miller were gay, I say let him stay in the closet. For all his right-wing kool-aid swilling, Miller is at least in favor of gay rights.

If it were up to Dennis Miller, gay people would be able to get married and then have their honeymoon in Las Vegas overlooking the Pacific Ocean's new post-global-warming coastline.

[Ian David]

12. Okay, I'm re-considering my original response. I agree with you more now

Being lazy and distracted in multiple directions, I didn't look carefully enough at the original article you were responding to.

I'm a big fan of The Barney Frank Rule.

I don't think it's appropriate to out people unless they are actively endorsing the anti-gay agenda.

Jodi Foster isn't Goebbels.

Not even to Ronald Reagan.

[Behind the Aegis]

14. Out the hypocrites! (BTW..I couldn't get the link to work).

How's this for a silly analogy? Mr. X is a serious PETA person and Vegan. He screams "fur is murder" and "meat is murder." He makes trouble for various businesses and private individuals. Then, one night, a person catches him and his wife at a secluded highway rest-stop restaurant...say "Stuckey's" Along with his pecan roll, he and his wife, donning a stunning sable coat, are mowing down on a plate of hot links! So, do we out them? I would! They are telling others not to do exactly what they are doing! However, what one eats and wears is ALSO a private matter. The issue is the hypocrisy.

If someone is voting against gay rights or railing against gay people, but enjoy an occasional game of "hide the salami," then I think that needs to be known! Don't let your own self-loathing and shame interfere with my life and rights. If you want it to stay private, then your opinions on gays and their rights should ALSO stay private!

[Ian David]

16. Outing: From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Outing
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.


Outing is the practice of deliberately making public another person's concealed or barely-concealed sexual identity or orientation, without that person's consent. The people outed are most often public figures such as politicians or celebrities.

The term, derived from the expression "coming out" (revealing one's sexual or gender orientation to others), was coined by Time. Taylor Branch used the term "outage" in 1982, Michelangelo Signorile prefers the term "reporting", and Gabriel Rotello suggests "equalizing", explaining that

"what we have called 'outing' is a primarily journalistic movement to treat homosexuality as equal to heterosexuality in the media...In 1990, many of us in the gay media announced that henceforth we would simply treat homosexuality and heterosexuality as equals. We were not going to wait for the perfect, utopian future to arrive before equalizing the two: We were going to do it now. That's what outing really is: equalizing homosexuality and heterosexuality in the media." (Signorile 1993, p.77-78)

The term can also be used in a more general sense as meaning to make public a fact about a person which the person wants kept secret. For instance, one may "out" someone as a communist (political), or a jew (racial).

<snip>

Outing as a political tool

One of the pioneers of the idea of outing hypocritical closeted gay homophobes was Michelangelo Signorile, as he documents in his book Queer In America. In the early 1990s Signorile was excoriated, by many both within the gay community and in the straight press, but many of his tactics are now seen as legitimate political and journalistic techniques for uncovering and revealing hypocrisy among those in power who are undermining equality for GLB Americans.

Some gay rights activists, however, defend outing as a tactic. The British activist Peter Tatchell says that "The lesbian and gay community has a right to defend itself against public figures who abuse their power and influence to support policies which inflict suffering on homosexuals." In 1994 Tatchell's activist group OutRage! named fourteen bishops of the Church of England as homosexual or bisexual, accusing them of hypocrisy for upholding the Church's policy of regarding homosexual acts as sinful while not observing this prohibition in their personal lives.

"Outing is queer self-defence," Tatchell says. "Lesbians and gay men have a right, and a duty, to expose hypocrites and homophobes. By not outing gay Bishops who support policies which harm homosexuals, we would be protecting those Bishops and thereby allowing them to continue to inflict suffering on members of our community. Collusion with hypocrisy and homophobia is not ethically defensible for Christians, or for anyone else."

In a simiar vein, one might "out" a pro-life legislator who paid for his own daughter to have an abortion.

<snip>

Barney Frank's opinions on outing are often quoted as "The Barney Frank Rule."

Gay Congressman Barney Frank (D-Mass.) said he endorses the practice in limited circumstances. “I am not inclined to do it, but I think if the congressman is rabidly anti-gay, it’s appropriate,” Frank said. “You don’t have a right to be a hypocrite; you don’t have a right to exempt yourself from the negative things you do to other people.”
Wave of outings hits Congress, Washington Blade, Friday, June 18, 2004


More:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outing

[Behind the Aegis]

17. Thanks for the info...but I know what "outing" is.

I was outed to my parents by a roommate because I would sleep with him. That's wrong. As a Jew, if I was railing against Jews not keeping kosher as I sit here and eat my pork rinds, I should be "outed" for that too. "Outing" has morphed as a word, and, although, still generally means "exposing someone's sexuality," it also means to "expose someone for hypocritical behavior." As for outing gay right-wingers/Republicans/conservatives, I still say, "You stay out of my business, and I will stay out of yours."

ON EDIT: The title sounds a little "catty," it's not meant to be. :)

[Ian David]

21. Oh, I know you know. And now you know that I know that you know...

I just posted it to the thread as an information-rich document.

And I know you weren't meaning to be catty.

And now you know that I know...

catty
English

Adjective

catty (comparative cattier, superlative cattiest)

1. (colloquial) Of a person or a remark, spiteful.


Synonyms

* (spiteful): bitchy (colloquial), malicious, nasty, snide, spiteful

More:
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/catty

[cynatnite]

22. Does this only apply to gays?

If you want it to stay private, then your opinions on gays and their rights should ALSO stay private!

Should someone who has had an abortion, but kept it private, not be allowed to speak on it?

What about smoking pot?

Any others?

I just find this rationale to be pretty weak.

[Behind the Aegis]

25. It applies to it all.

If you have had an abortion and are railing against, protesting and trying to pass law, then that fact should come out! How about when Rush was "outed" for his own drug use after his years of ranting about putting drug users to death? Boy, his message sure has changed. Now, it's just death for the dealers.

What one does in private should stay private. But, if you choose to talk about it, you should be prepared to have your hypocrisies exposed.

On edit: I finally was able to read the article. I thought it was about the Fox news guy. As for the others mentioned, they have never caused waves or problems for gays and gay rights...let them be. I would say the same even if they were conservatives/Republicans, as long as they weren't actively working against me and my community, leave them be.

[cynatnite]

27. Rush broke the law...that's the difference...

People have a right to speak out about anything they choose. Their private life belongs to them and not to anyone else to make judgments on whether you agree with it or not. That's a RW characteristic.

It's also a RW tactic and I'm always amazed at those progressives who are willing to use them.

edited for clarification

[Behind the Aegis]

28. And this...

A member of congress is a member of the Klan. Should that remain private? After all, s/he can be a member of any group on his/her own time.

On edit...Suppose this person is working on a Civil Rights bill.

[cynatnite]

29. Yes, it should...

I'm not much of a cherry picker.

As distasteful as it is, it is their right to be a part of whatever group they choose.

It gets murky for me when they lie about it. If they lie about being gay, having an abortion, using drugs or anything else...then I think a case can be made even though I still struggle with that part of it.

[Behind the Aegis]

32. I understand what you are saying.

Earlier you implied it was a RW tactic. No. The RW tactic is debating with someone about finances and saying, "well, I should have guessed a homosexual would think this way." The two have nothing to do with one another. Now, what I am talking about is Senator Goodhater standing on the Senate floor speaking about the ills of homosexuality and how laws should be passed to curtail their (gay people) rights. All the while, he is carrying on a sexual relationship with his page. But, Senator Closet, says nothing publicly about gays, doesn't show condemnation or support, and he is also having affair with Senator Goodhater's page. I would not be in favor of "outing" Senator Closet, but Sen. Goodhater...he'd be "out, out, damn" liar. The RW tactic would be to out the one who said nothing and conceal the one who supports their agenda.

[cynatnite]

33. The RW is always airing so-called dirty laundry...

They're pros at this sort of tactic and it's my belief that we should be above that. Whether it's a lie or not, the RW has a history of smearing whoever runs counter to their agenda.

We've still got the truth on our side no matter how successful or unsuccessful they are.

While you may see Sen. Goodhater as being worthy of being outed...should Sen. Closet be dragged along with it? Should Sen. Closet be an unfortunate casualty in order to expose Goodhater? Is it right? What about the families of either one? Should they suffer as well? Is it worth it in the end?

This will never be something I can agree with.

[Behind the Aegis]

34. We will have to disagree on this topic.

The RWs have mastered airing 'dirty laundry.' I agree that we do not need to stoop to that level. However, exposing lies is not airing dirty laundry, in my opinion.

As for fallout, that is their responsibility. When you set up lies, you will hurt yourself and those you love. So why expose them to 'danger' by basing positions on a lie? And, which is worse, living a lie and knowing it, or being made to live a lie and not know it? :shrug:

[cynatnite]

37. This is the part where I struggle...

If they lie...say they're not gay, never had an abortion, etc...then a case can be made. I'm not confident I could view their silence in the same light, though.

The only thing that comes to mind is that who are we to expose them? It's one thing when the law is broken, but when it comes to something so personal I honestly couldn't feel right about it or even support it.

You made some good points and I will be thinking about this for quite a while.

[Karenina]

35. You GO, BtA!!!

:yourock:

[donheld]

23. I don't see what the up-roar is

I knew these people were gay long ago. I thought most everybody did.

[onenote]

26. I agree with protecting privacy -- where do you draw the line

For those that think outing "hypocrisy" trumps a public person's privacy rights, let me pose a couple of hypotheticals:

1) A prominent gay male activist is seen in a passionate embrace with a straight woman, and then checking into a hotel room with her, spending the night and leaving together in the morning. Would it be appropriate for this fact to be reported?

2) A prominent male sports figure who holds himself out to the public as a married man, does advertisements featuring his wife and children, but who has no known position on gay rights: a male witness comes forward and claims to engaged in a torrid affair with this person: would reporting this be appropriate?

3) A prominent elected official who holds himself out to the world as a married man and a church goer, who regularly appears in public with his spouse and children, is discovered to be having an affair with another woman? Should the press disclose this fact? Would it matter if the woman was the politician's daughter's best friend?

Curious if folks see differences or not.

onenote

[gulfcoastliberal]

30. See, In America when you're a celebrity, you have less privacy rights

Write your congressperson if you think the law should be changed or sue somebody. Get over it.

[cynatnite]

31. See post #10 & #20 n/t