When is it OK to "out" someone

[texasjohn1965]

There are some people in this world who should be outed. Child molesters, rapists, thieves, and thugs all deserve to be shown to the world for what they are. The question I have, is it ever acceptable to out, or threaten to out someone because of an online discussion? I know that if someone was to threaten to do extreme damage to my personal and financial wellbeing, that I would be inclined to prevent that. I enjoy sleeping indoors, and someone threatening that, better be prepared for the blowback. Some people may have the attitude that it's just spirited debate, that no one would actually do that. Isn't that what they said about Jared Laughner? No one wants to accept responsibility for weeding out bad apples, but everyone wants to point fingers after the fact.

What would be your response if you were threatened with personal/finacial harm? Where do you draw the line?

[guest043013-2]

Never.

Now, the longer answer:

1. I am refering to outing someone on this (or other similar boards). Never is the answer. Outing means linking a person's handle to his or her real name.

2. Alerting police to a dangerous person (molestation, rape, murder, etc.) You have a duty there. Many people could go ot jail for failure to take steps to protect someone in this case. (At least in Texas.)

Reporting a dangerous person to the authorities is different than outing someone here on a silly old whore board...

Shyster Jon might like to weigh in on this, but I see outing and reporting to authorities as two different and unrelated responses to a problem.

[MsElena]

If you were threatened with personal harm and/or financial blackmail, you should call the cops. Let them (LE) out the person to the world. Hopefully you have proof to prove to them.

[Mojojo]

Originally Posted by MsElena

If you were threatened with personal harm and/or financial blackmail, you should call the cops. Let them (LE) out the person to the world. Hopefully you have proof to prove to them.

I think something like this maybe idk depends on you and how you want to handle it, but for disagreement on discussion or personalities NEVER! I dont think the bullshit that comes with outing someone is worth it (the back and forth, or anything else that may follow).

[Mokoa]

As far as this site is concerned, never. Rule 5 of Forum Guidelines is quite clear about that.

[Carlie]

ANY threat, whether veiled or direct is of interest to the authorities. In todays world
if you perceive any correspondence, text, or email threatening, it is.

It is the same as sexual harassment, its only a crime if the person on the receiving end
finds it offensive.

Carlie

[ShysterJon]

I think the OP uses the phrase "outing someone" in different ways, some of which don't really apply to this board. The way we use the term here has a particular meaning, which is to inform a provider or hobbyist's family, friends, employer, etc. that they engage in prostitution. Reporting a danger to the authorities is not "outing."

Through the years, I've known of dozens of cases of outing within our community. I've experienced threats of outing and actual outing myself. In all the cases I know of, I never heard of one that was justified as advancing a higher good; rather, they were all motivated by only the basest of emotions -- spite, meanness, jealousy, hate, and greed, to name a few.

A different question is: Would it ever be justified to out someone because they have threatened to out you? Again, my answer is no. I think we've learned in the last few years that we should not attack those who merely threaten us because oftentimes the threat is an empty one that the scumbag cannot or will not carry out.

But is it ever justified to only THREATEN to out someone to protect yourself? Maybe. I understand the theory of mutually-assured destruction as it applies to maintaining nuclear weapons. We don't nuke the Chinese because we know to do so would assure our own annihilation from their retaliatory strike.

But bear in mind that such threats could be illegal. In Texas there are criminal statutes prohibiting harassment and stalking. If the threat involves blackmail -- that is, threatening to reveal damaging information about someonme to gain something of value -- that's considered felony theft in Texas.

I would hope a person could use their wits to deter a would-be outer, rather than engaging in the same type of sorry conduct as his or her tormentor.

[pyramider]

Originally Posted by Mokoa

As far as this site is concerned, never. Rule 5 of Forum Guidelines is quite clear about that.

Ah crap . . . Now we have to refer to a insanely long list of rules.

[texasjohn1965]

My use of the term "outing" is specifically related to employment. When someone threatens to make an individual unhireable due to participation in this board and the hobby.

[ShysterJon]

Originally Posted by texasjohn1965

My use of the term "outing" is specifically related to employment. When someone threatens to make an individual unhireable due to participation in this board and the hobby.

Maybe you should explain how that's even possible. For example, how would the outer communicate with the outee's prospective employers? I don't think the job-hunter would take her along to job interviews.

[JohnnyPool]

Hats off to all those in this thread so far. For me it's an obvious "never" and I've never been part of a board where that was acceptable for any reason. If someone feels they need to out somebody because they've done something terrible, it should be left to those best suited to handle that behavior, not the general public. But like the wise Shyster said, it's usually over something personal.
And of course, outing anybody shouldn't be tolerated on this board or anywhere else. It's not good for the hobby in general.

[Brooke Wilde]

An eye for an eye sounds fair to me.

[Madame X]

Actually, an eye for an eye will leave us all blind

I'm a strong advocate for never. How *stupid* would the pot have to be to call the kettle black? We all have collateral dirt on each other here, so if one persons starts outing another person who in turn could get outed as revenge, etc... it all unravels like a cheap sweater.

~Mme X~

[ShysterJon]

Originally Posted by Brooke Wild

An eye for an eye sounds fair to me.

The principle, "an eye for an eye," a/k/a "the law of retaliation" (in Latin lex talionis), does NOT apply to individual acts. The principle states it is ethical FOR SOCIETY to inflict upon a wrongdoer the same injury he caused to another. Therefore, it is a principle applied through the collective will of a society, as expressed in its LAWS. Acts of individual retaliation express contempt for the law and push a society toward chaos and anarchy.

[npita]

I'm sure the answer to that will vary as widely as the number of people who answer it. Just about any disagreement will escalate to the point that neither party feels like it''s worth pursuing further. Outing or threats of outing would be even more common if it didn't work both ways and most people didn't settle disagreements to the extent they think it's not worth the hassle before getting to that point. Basically, people are going to think it's ok to out someone or threaten to out someone to the extent they can. Rather than rely on some consensus of of acceptable behaviour, just protect your true identity based on what you have to lose by being outed and assuming that eventually you'll run into someone who has few qualms about outing you.