Re: ALL: AMC OLTL GH Gay Soap Stars

On Jul 10, 10:05 pm, Aisling Willow Grey <aisl...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 21:09:41 -0400, thus spake Lynn Liccardo (in article

i don't know how many times i have to post this reply before it
actually appears. I DID NOT OUT JAMES MITCHELL!~. both aruthur
laurents and farley granger discussed having relationships with jm in
their respective autobiographies -- laurents's was published in 2000.
so that information has been out in the public square for 8 years.
which i pointed out in my reply to trusi's outrageous ranting on june
17. the fact that this information was not included in your original
post, dated june 15,  is absolutely irresponsible!  this was brought
to my attention because someone googled my name. NOT COOL! once again:
I DID NOT OUT JAMES MITCHELL. that piece of information had been
revealed AT LEAST 8 years ago. <<

Er...

As for whether you outed James Mitchell or not, the audience who read
Granger's and Laurents' bios is not necessarily the same subset of the
population as people who watch soaps, so there's a good chance that you _did_
out him with the soap viewership...


OK, I've had a chance to think this through more carefully now and
perhaps can articulate a little better what I want to say, and it's
essentially a variation on the point that Aisling made: doesn't
whether one is guilty of "outing" someone whose sexuality has been
published, or alleged, elsewhere, depend on how widespread that
previous publication was? If the Journal of Nonexistent Readers,
circulation 317, publishes an article revealing that I'm gay, and
basically nobody notices, but then The New York Times, circulation a
zillion, picks up on it and publicizes the little-known article, so
that I'm bombarded by all sorts of publicity, is it fair of the Times
to say it didn't out me? I would argue not. I'd say that the
responsibility/blame is shared between the two.

I imagine a minimal number of people have read either of the two
biographies mentioned, so to cite either of them in defense of the
idea that the blog entry didn't out JM is a little hard to justify,
I'd say. It would be on stronger ground, I would think, to argue that
the blog has limited enough exposure that it hasn't really "outed" JM
either, except that many things picked up in blogs get circulated more
widely, and that puts the blog in the same category as the Journal of
Nonexistent Readers in the example above.

Overall, I'd say it's disingenous to argue that because information X
didn't originate with you, you only passed it on, you therefore lack
any culpability in regard to whatever damage it does.

Michael
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: religion help
    ... government employees or being published by government agencies getting ... talking about scientists suffering "persecution and punishment," which ... James an apology. ... each other for ever on the comments section of my blog. ...
    (rec.arts.sf.composition)
  • Re: Surrogate factoring, update
    ... I, Thomas James St Denis, citizen of Canada am bound to the Canadian ... of 298 states "A defamatory libel is matter published, ... "Every one who publishes a defamatory libel is guilty of an ... publication such as usenet. ...
    (sci.crypt)
  • Re: JSH please read, some questions
    ... second half of his posts here. ... Be warned that anything on James' blog can disappear at a moment's ...
    (sci.crypt)
  • Re: JSH: Just plain silly
    ... nonsense, I did it of my own accord, and James actually suggested I *not* ... with the editor allegedly sending this "review" ... That gives me a chance to formulate a response in the correct manner, ... seek publication of my response. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: JSH: Just plain silly
    ... > AFTER publication, and which specifically spoke of the thing ALREADY ... James didn't enlist me. ... > and to seek publication of my response. ... Revisionist history is still a big word ...
    (sci.math)