5 ms·

So as long as you do bad shit and get away with it for 15 years no one should judge you for it?

pmorici 6y ago
Not what the OP said. Even the US constitution recognizes that Ex post facto laws are bad and specifically prohibits their passage. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto_law#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto_law#United_State...
- bluntfang 6y ago
  The law isn't social or corporate. It's funny this community supports separation of politics and workplace until it could possibly effect them negatively. I don't care how long it's been since you were in the KKK or sexually harassed your EA even if it was "socially acceptable at the time", I don't ever want to work with you.
  - TimTheTinker 6y ago
    Journalism’s purpose is to report current and past events that have a bearing on history — both political and social. You may not want to work with a former KKK member, but that doesn’t mean the press (or anyone) has any business exposing their sins in public, unless there are specific crimes for which penal justice has yet to be served—and even then, a wise journalist would do well to contact the DA instead of publishing first. Beyond that, I would remark that “love your neighbor as yourself” does include personal and social forgiveness of past wrongs: “He who covers an offense promotes love.” But an unforgiving society is brittle and prone to collapse into totalitarianism.
    - dragonwriter 6y ago
      > Journalism’s purpose is to report current and past events that have a bearing on history — both political and social. No, it's not. Journalism serves the current public interest, not history, except insofar as the latter serves the former. > You may not want to work with a former KKK member, but that doesn’t mean the press (or anyone) has any business exposing their sins in public, unless there are specific crimes for which penal justice has yet to be served. The scope of the public interest isn't limited to crimes, that's a ludicrous idea. Heck, that's not even consistent with your earlier claim about the relationship between journalism and history, as the interest of history is much broader than crimes.
      - TimTheTinker 6y ago
        > Journalism serves the current public interest, not history Thanks. I think my idea was a sort of "idealized journalism". I'll accept your correction. > The scope of the public interest isn't limited to crimes, that's a ludicrous idea. I didn't say that. If you can think of another reason for publishing specific activities of private individuals from years ago that serves the public interest—as we agree is journalism's purpose—by all means share it. I could only think of one reason; perhaps there are others. Generally, naming and shaming private individuals for specific non-criminal acts in the past does not serve the public interest; that's my point. The only interest it serves is that of the mob, or that of a totalitarian government, both of which we will find it harder to avoid the more we tolerate this type of journalism. This is not how a healthy, free society behaves.
        bluntfang 6y ago
        >If you can think of another reason for publishing specific activities of private individuals from years ago that serves the public interest Donald Trump's history of sexual harassment. I don't want a womanizer to be President, even if it was socially acceptable to do a bunch of coke and fuck your EA or teenagers at the time.
        TimTheTinker 6y ago
        Donald Trump is a public figure. My above points concern private individuals.
        bluntfang 6y ago
        Replace Donald Trump with my coworkers or boss or CEO.
        TimTheTinker 6y ago
        Yeah, that's where it firmly crosses the line regarding public interest. Whatever we allow to be done to others can just as well happen to us. Never forget: First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > Even the US constitution recognizes that Ex post facto laws are bad and specifically prohibits their passage. Ex post facto is a term of art in criminal law; and the prohibition has everything to do with the type of consequences that are uniquely applied in the criminal context. It does not reflect a general rule that there is no liability for wrongs determined after-the-fact, but is a special exception to the general rule that such liability is acceptable.
  - pmorici 6y ago
    Yes, but it is a recognition that there is a certain general unfairness to holding someone to account for something which society found perfectly fine at the time it took place only to be made wrong after the fact.
s1artibartfast 6y ago
I think you missed a critical part of the post you are responding to. >...for doing something that is completely normal and socially acceptable The question has to do with the growing application of moral presentism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presentism_(literary_and_historical_analysis) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presentism_(literary_and_histo...

Not what the OP said. Even the US constitution recognizes that Ex post facto laws are bad and specifically prohibits their passage. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto_law#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto_law#United_State...

bluntfang 6y ago
The law isn't social or corporate. It's funny this community supports separation of politics and workplace until it could possibly effect them negatively. I don't care how long it's been since you were in the KKK or sexually harassed your EA even if it was "socially acceptable at the time", I don't ever want to work with you.
- TimTheTinker 6y ago
  Journalism’s purpose is to report current and past events that have a bearing on history — both political and social. You may not want to work with a former KKK member, but that doesn’t mean the press (or anyone) has any business exposing their sins in public, unless there are specific crimes for which penal justice has yet to be served—and even then, a wise journalist would do well to contact the DA instead of publishing first. Beyond that, I would remark that “love your neighbor as yourself” does include personal and social forgiveness of past wrongs: “He who covers an offense promotes love.” But an unforgiving society is brittle and prone to collapse into totalitarianism.
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    > Journalism’s purpose is to report current and past events that have a bearing on history — both political and social. No, it's not. Journalism serves the current public interest, not history, except insofar as the latter serves the former. > You may not want to work with a former KKK member, but that doesn’t mean the press (or anyone) has any business exposing their sins in public, unless there are specific crimes for which penal justice has yet to be served. The scope of the public interest isn't limited to crimes, that's a ludicrous idea. Heck, that's not even consistent with your earlier claim about the relationship between journalism and history, as the interest of history is much broader than crimes.
    - TimTheTinker 6y ago
      > Journalism serves the current public interest, not history Thanks. I think my idea was a sort of "idealized journalism". I'll accept your correction. > The scope of the public interest isn't limited to crimes, that's a ludicrous idea. I didn't say that. If you can think of another reason for publishing specific activities of private individuals from years ago that serves the public interest—as we agree is journalism's purpose—by all means share it. I could only think of one reason; perhaps there are others. Generally, naming and shaming private individuals for specific non-criminal acts in the past does not serve the public interest; that's my point. The only interest it serves is that of the mob, or that of a totalitarian government, both of which we will find it harder to avoid the more we tolerate this type of journalism. This is not how a healthy, free society behaves.
      - bluntfang 6y ago
        >If you can think of another reason for publishing specific activities of private individuals from years ago that serves the public interest Donald Trump's history of sexual harassment. I don't want a womanizer to be President, even if it was socially acceptable to do a bunch of coke and fuck your EA or teenagers at the time.
        TimTheTinker 6y ago
        Donald Trump is a public figure. My above points concern private individuals.
        bluntfang 6y ago
        Replace Donald Trump with my coworkers or boss or CEO.
        TimTheTinker 6y ago
        Yeah, that's where it firmly crosses the line regarding public interest. Whatever we allow to be done to others can just as well happen to us. Never forget: First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
dragonwriter 6y ago
> Even the US constitution recognizes that Ex post facto laws are bad and specifically prohibits their passage. Ex post facto is a term of art in criminal law; and the prohibition has everything to do with the type of consequences that are uniquely applied in the criminal context. It does not reflect a general rule that there is no liability for wrongs determined after-the-fact, but is a special exception to the general rule that such liability is acceptable.
- pmorici 6y ago
  Yes, but it is a recognition that there is a certain general unfairness to holding someone to account for something which society found perfectly fine at the time it took place only to be made wrong after the fact.

s1artibartfast 6y ago

I think you missed a critical part of the post you are responding to. >...for doing something that is completely normal and socially acceptable The question has to do with the growing application of moral presentism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presentism_(literary_and_historical_analysis) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presentism_(literary_and_histo...