Privacy is a very complex topic when it comes to the web and wireless devices. There many security features, established to allow the users to protect their personal information. However, some things are always bound o be leaked or misinterpreted, or just blatantly open for public access. Here are a few examples.
Apparently a Liberal Democrat tweeted his personal opinion about the Scientology church and caused quite a raucous in his online community. As a position holder he had been expected to behave more sophisticatedly then casually calling a certain faith “stupid”. Now, even though this was his personal twitter account, he was still scrutinized and for his behavior by some. However on the other hand, he created quite a fan base. His online followers increased significantly after this incident became public. Oddly enough, one tweet, one random thought he decided to post had such a great effect on him, all because some one was personally hurt and decided they wanted disciplinary actions to be enforced. Understanding that becoming position holder in most organizations comes with a certain level of personal responsibility, but was trying to fault this man for an opinion posted on his personal twitter account a breech of his privacy? Now, I understand that because it was posted it was available for all to read, and maybe changed public opinions on the gentlemen and his beliefs but was it necessary to take disciplinary action? This brings us into our next point, how the media uses personal information of church leaders to shape public opinion.
I found a post that summarized the accusations of 10 well known black pastors over the years. It exposes lawsuits about sexual abuse, divorces due to adultery, among other less than honorable issues. Airing this dirty laundry does not only give a public opinion about the men themselves but also their faith in general. All these men were black of a various denominations of the Christian faith. Some accusations were not proven, though other were. Is it fair, though they are public figures, to publish aspects of their personal lives as a reflection of their performance in ministry. I have not really found the best way to answer this question. I think that because faith plays a big part on how Christian specifically are to govern their lives it is unfortunate to see leadership in such situations. However, should a leader be judged by these scandals alone. In my search for information on this topic it seemed that that rumors and lawsuits and unfaithfulness were the most populous and easy to find news. I think the successes of these leaders should e published as well their shortcomings so that the readers can develop their own opinions instead of the ones given to them by the media, through exposing private information.
Over all, I think we all have situations in our lives that we would not want published. The Liberal Democrat councillor did not care to be challenged about his personal tweet, but understood the nature of his comment, although he did not think it would get that much recognition. He was being judged as a councillor for something he was saying as a man with an opinion, not a leader trying to sway public opinion or purposely offend a particular person. I do not know what would happen if everyone tried to complain about every offensive remark made online about their faith. I do not see the use of worrying about it at this point. On the other hand, when it comes to individual people and information about their personal lives used to reflect an entire faith itself is where we can go wrong and cause more damage then necessary.
sources:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2010/jul/20/councillor-inquiry-stupid-scientology-tweet
http://atlantapost.com/2010/10/01/scandals-at-the-alter-10-black-church-leaders-whove-incited-controversy-and-doubt/10/
You don’t really say if this Liberal Democrat is in politics are is just a regular citizen. If he is in politics, I think that with the job this Liberal Democrat has he should be well aware of possible repercussions of any statement he makes. Even if he was tweeting on his own personal account, the American people are watching and listening to every word he says. If he says something offensive like scientology is a “stupid” religion then he should be prepared for hurt reactions from those who believe in scientology. This kind of goes back to our discussion on internet etiquettes. There were a lot more professional and nicer ways he could have commented his disagreement to the scientology religion. This is true if he was a politician or not. However, I don’t believe that he deserves any type of disciplinary action because he does have freedom of speech. His comment just shows how tactless he is, and I think an uproar from the scientology community is appropriate because he was rudely insulting their belief.
ReplyDeleteThe issue with the Black pastors is that, as pastors, they are upholding and representing their Christian beliefs and by committing acts such as adultery and sexual abuse they are going against the very values that they claim to believe in and are preaching to other people! Sure, they may have had successes in their lives, but these successes were done under the guise of Christian beliefs. If they spend their lives preaching that adultery is a sin, but they go around and cheat on their wives all of their credibility is shattered. They become hypocrites and now anything they’ve ever said is put into question. Even if you do publish their successes they will no longer be taken seriously because they have not been sincere in all their beliefs. I’m not about to look for guidance from a person who goes back on their word and who is hypocritical towards their beliefs! However, I believe that the media should only hype these crimes committed by pastors if they have actually been proven guilty. If they are guilty, then I feel the public has a right to know that they’ve been hoodwinked by an insincere hypocrite. But if the media is reporting only on an accusation there is a possibility that the pastor is innocent, but his career is ruined because of the media hype.