For this discussion assassination is defined as: to kill in a surprise attack for political or religious reasons; to gossip for same or similar personal reasons.
Today the overwhelming presence of technology in our lives and the easy access to the internet makes the opportunities for character assassination, gossip or outright slander easy, and increasing. Even when things are posted that are untrue, oddly over time people's beliefs may be swayed and their former good opinions altered to a more negative tone. How does that happen?
Lori Andrews writes about this subject in her new book, I Know Who You Are and I Saw What You Did, primarily about privacy issues and the internet. She discusses at length the 1890 legal briefs written by then young Boston attorneys Louis Brandeis and Samuel Warren in a chapter titled Technology and Fundamental Rights. Recounting the young Brandeis' life, author Andrews talks about his concern for his family when in 1889 his first child was born and the Kodak Brownie portable camera simultaneously made its first appearance. No longer was it necessary to go to a photo studio to be photographed with large, cumbersome cameras. Now they were portable and increasingly every where. He was concerned about the indiscriminate photographing of his children while in public. Doesn't a person have a right to "their own face," he mused. Surely there must be a legal answer to this new question brought by technology.
Prior to portable cameras a person could hardly be photographed without their permission, largely due to the limits of the technology. After 1888 when the Brownie appeared, all changed. These photo enthusiasts were called "photo fiends" by the popular press. As Warren and Brandeis assessed the impact of the portable camera in modern life, their instinct told them several things: people should be able to have control over their images; they also should have the simple right to be left alone, and the right to control the information others could collect about them; in short theirs was a conception of the privacy rights, and rights of due process that today we all now enjoy.
Their 1890 legal brief advanced theses ideas:
"The intensity and complexity of life attendant upon the advancing civilization have rendered necessary some retreat from the world, so that solitude and privacy have become more essential to the individual; modern enterprise and invention have, through [various] invasions upon his privacy, subjected him to mental pain and distress far greater than could be inflicted by mere bodily injury."
They continue their thought that there is indeed an essential right for individuals to be simply left alone, like the legal protections against assault or beatings or malicious prosecution. The right of a person to control what is said or written about him long has had a place in law. The suits of slander and liable address traditional wrongs to others committed by would be character assassins when in public speech or in traditional publications such as books, newspapers or magazines. One's reputation is among the very first of property rights an individual must, and ought to protect. It is indeed the very first form of property rights possessed by individuals. Brandeis and Warren later went on to become members of the Supreme Court of the United States of America.
Warren and Brandeis also demonstrated how gossip, "even apparently harmless, when widely and persistently circulated, is potent for evil." Like the pouring of salt into a wound, gossip can and does create harm where perhaps there was previously none. Those of us on both sides, those who have placed others in a false light and those who have been so placed, can attest to the evil potential of gossip. Today we now contend with "social networks," the likes of which were unknown a short 20 years ago, which now claim hundreds of million users. Between social networks and "data aggregators" the potential for evil in our modern age is on a scale unimaginable by Brandeis and Warren.
Many have been already been harmed by this mode and many, many more are sure to be next. Often the internet attackers are nameless and faceless; they are invented identities, multiple accounts--sock puppets who ordinarily couldn't be taken seriously, and yet somehow they are. There is the salt, and the evil of it all. When we relay information that is scurrilous and false about others, maybe because we're angry or resentful, do we really think that it could fly back in our face? Most times no, because the methods typically chosen place the evil-doer in the shadows; hidden in their perch where they comfortably complete their task.
Their 1890 legal brief advanced theses ideas:
"The intensity and complexity of life attendant upon the advancing civilization have rendered necessary some retreat from the world, so that solitude and privacy have become more essential to the individual; modern enterprise and invention have, through [various] invasions upon his privacy, subjected him to mental pain and distress far greater than could be inflicted by mere bodily injury."
They continue their thought that there is indeed an essential right for individuals to be simply left alone, like the legal protections against assault or beatings or malicious prosecution. The right of a person to control what is said or written about him long has had a place in law. The suits of slander and liable address traditional wrongs to others committed by would be character assassins when in public speech or in traditional publications such as books, newspapers or magazines. One's reputation is among the very first of property rights an individual must, and ought to protect. It is indeed the very first form of property rights possessed by individuals. Brandeis and Warren later went on to become members of the Supreme Court of the United States of America.
Warren and Brandeis also demonstrated how gossip, "even apparently harmless, when widely and persistently circulated, is potent for evil." Like the pouring of salt into a wound, gossip can and does create harm where perhaps there was previously none. Those of us on both sides, those who have placed others in a false light and those who have been so placed, can attest to the evil potential of gossip. Today we now contend with "social networks," the likes of which were unknown a short 20 years ago, which now claim hundreds of million users. Between social networks and "data aggregators" the potential for evil in our modern age is on a scale unimaginable by Brandeis and Warren.
Many have been already been harmed by this mode and many, many more are sure to be next. Often the internet attackers are nameless and faceless; they are invented identities, multiple accounts--sock puppets who ordinarily couldn't be taken seriously, and yet somehow they are. There is the salt, and the evil of it all. When we relay information that is scurrilous and false about others, maybe because we're angry or resentful, do we really think that it could fly back in our face? Most times no, because the methods typically chosen place the evil-doer in the shadows; hidden in their perch where they comfortably complete their task.
When jealousy or other strong emotion is the prime mover for this behavior, does the perpetrator slow down long enough to engage their brain, question what may or may not be true? Most often they do not; their grief propels them to return the perceived hurt to those whom they believe may have injured them.
But what if, over time it's uncovered that the accusations, the beliefs prompting the actions were with error, or while possibly true, held unintended consequences, then what? Can we forgive our self?
But what if, over time it's uncovered that the accusations, the beliefs prompting the actions were with error, or while possibly true, held unintended consequences, then what? Can we forgive our self?
Can we "out" our self into the bright sunlight, give up our dark perches for a more honest and truthful self appraisal, appraise our relationships which prompted us in the first place? What part do we play? How have we contributed or failed? What, or even how can a morass of gossip be retracted or corrected?
Are we now just a little bit shamed or embarrassed that we spoke without facts, that we were perhaps a bit ignorant? And do we, to some degree, continue in resentment towards our "maybe" enemy? Does this prevent us from taking the point of view that the right to be left alone is basic? Why are we engaged in such mean, petty behavior to begin with--can we just leave well alone if we aren't liking something?
So there is the hook-- we're in it with both feet! How so? Unable to leave well enough alone, we've plunged in. For example, I know a lady who thought that her son and another's daughter while young, schoolmates and neighbors were not suitable playmates.
So she sought to disrupt their amiable regard for one another by various means. Sometimes she told her son that the neighbor girl wasn't very nice; sometimes she called the girl names when speaking about her; often when she saw the girl around, she was cool and unfriendly; sometimes she complained to others that she wished that the girl would find something else to do--somewhere else; a few times she said things to the young girl that were confusing and hurtful.
The little neighbor girl was sad. She could not quite understand the woman's attitude or her wish that she not play with her schoolmate and neighbor friend.
The little neighbor girl was sad. She could not quite understand the woman's attitude or her wish that she not play with her schoolmate and neighbor friend.
After a time it became more clear to the young girl's mother that the neighbor woman felt her daughter was an unsuitable associate for their son. On what basis, the girl's mother was mystified. She could clearly see however the harm that gossip prompted not only for her family, but also in the other family, as more people heard the boy's mother complain, the more they focused not only on the children but both families as well.
The truth about gossip is in the fact that "dirt flies in all directions." To dirty others, you must also dirty your self.
No comments:
Post a Comment