This generally makes sense to me, but what signifies "significant crimes" besides murder, which is mentioned in the article? I had a friend who was all over the news after being charged with multiple counts of rape and sodomy. He was completely acquitted and the case never went to trial. Still, he'll never clear his name online. That being said, I'm not saying I know what the rules should be.
That and the other end of the spectrum, as well. Will they omit names from minor stories where a person might have just done/said something embarrassing, controversial, or hateful, but not illegal. Or possibly illegal, but not charged/cited/arrested?
All the recent news stories on various "Karen" interactions come to mind.
There definitely seems to be a weird spot where people consciously want to give the benefit of the doubt/second chance for those who erred and are in the legal system - and an opposite reaction where there is no chance for repentance if the err was a cultural thing outside the legal system.
> where there is no chance for repentance if the err was a cultural thing outside the legal system
So, two thoughts:
- People react to bad actors exactly because there is no other corrective mechanism than shaming.
- I don't know where this notion of "forever pariah" came from. Seems to me nearly every high profile case of someone being "canceled" is actually a more of an "embarrassed pause" - they got called out for being horrible, maybe lost their job, and... are back a year or so later.
Where are the hordes of cancelled people who got a life sentence? Did we start a Misfit Island they're all banished to when I was looking?
Who? The NASCAR driver Kyle Larson casually called someone the n-word live on stream at the start of the pandemic, and is back driving full-time again now in 2021. He's by far the highest profile case of a "cancellation" in stock car racing, and he is an example of the "temporary, embarrassed hiatus" claim.
That's not a cancelled ride tho? It's admittedly a bit weird, but he's still driving in one of the top flights of American motorsport. He hasn't exactly been removed from the sport, as implied by Walter
I know Louie CK is still making money - but I actually think he would have been integrated back into media better if he got arrested for j^cking off on the street in 2017 and did a weekend in prison than the reality of him j^cking off in an apartment in front of particular females in the 90s.
I feel like this is an exact distillation of what I was referring to when I said there is a preference to help those with legal issues accused of things.
There aren't "hordes" of people who have had their life ruined just because there were AP articles written about minor felonies they were accused of.
I think its fine to either be strict on both or forgiving on both, but something about the internal inconsistency really annoys me.
It derives from a different system of who deserves grace and forgiveness. It used to be that forgiveness was for people who are sorry, but now in some social contexts forgiveness is for people who are powerless.
This means that you cannot earn forgiveness through contrition, because contrition is no longer the qualifying factor.
I think that's the idealized version of what's happening. In reality, one side gets loud 24/7 advocation broadcast nationwide, the other side's advocates are silenced by intimidation.
What you're calling social contexts isn't an organic situation. Society didn't decide the context, so much as the context desired by some has been cherry picked and amplified.
Dissenters are ostracized, then the alternative is proclaimed as what society has decided.
It's the social version of communist "elections," where you can vote for whatever candidate you want, as long as it's a communist one.
You can be arrested for a crime that you know nothing about. Or even arrested for a thing that wasn't a crime, but the police just wanted you to have a bad day, so they charged you with something they knew couldn't stick. Yeah, that's illegal, but what's anyone going to do about it, sue?
But if you said something on twitter, or were caught on camera doing something repugnant, there's not really much plausible deniability.
When it comes to things like sexual harassment, where there's no direct proof, people generally get the benefit of the doubt a few dozen times.
I'm not even saying the double standard is all bad but I really think that is a stretch. Plenty of people have been caught in situations on viral videos that were taken without their knowledge that show an incident without context.
Additionally - everything you could say about police making up incidents on a report is the same for someone being sued re: harassment or whatever. If you are suing for legitimate issue X, any lawyer will tell you to play up additional incidents that will look bad in the press even if you don't have evidence for when it would go to arbitration/trial.
Other countries have laws that prohibit suspects from being named. I wish we had those laws because the follow up is never going to happen. You can't unring a bell that someone is a rapist, when they are found to be innocent or the charges are dropped.
If police is corrupt and want someone to disappear they just won't create arrest records. US police was using black-sites where people disappeared without problem.
On the other hand public arrest record put a great opportunity for malice and blackmail - do what I want or I'll arrest you for allegedly molesting a minor. Charges will be dropped but good luck clearing your name ever. Now pay up.
> If police is corrupt and want someone to disappear they just won't create arrest records
Departments routinely doing this get caught. (They have.)
Of course if it’s corrupt all the way up you’re screwed. But the aim is to create grappling points for the Feds and state Attorneys General on e.g. city cops. Showing a pattern of undocumented arrests or of the arrested going missing is easier when arrest records are public.
It’s a tradeoff between the power of the state over the public versus the power of the public over itself.
Arrest records are fine as long as the follow-up is located in the same place. Though a voluntary process to expunge records that didn't lead to conviction wouldn't be amiss either.
Companies which are owed mortgage/rent and credit card/cell phone/insurance bills etc. will do their utmost to make sure the person isn't actually disappeared or deceased.
In that case, shouldn't the policy be to only report on convictions?
Even in that case, the internet now never forgets. One small mistake when young can impact one's future significantly. The memory of humanity of a whole continues to expand exponentially. Could lead to some interesting outcomes.
