Year: 2013

The Fake Pilots Caper: No Excuse For Professional Cluelessness

/ Jack Marshall / 22 Comments

Fake Names

I was unable to post on this story in a timely fashion, but better late than never.

Everyone was laughing at the punking of WKTU TV in the Bay area on July 6, when it reported fake names of the alleged pilots in the Asiana Airlines crash that killed  three and injured many more. It was funny, in the same way Bart Simpson’s multitude of fake names he uses to embarrass Mo at Mo’s tavern is funny. (“Amanda Huggenkiss? I’ll see if she’s here.”(shouting) “I need Amanda Hugginkiss! Can someone find me Amanda Huggnkiss?”) But Mo is an idiot who runs a cartoon bar, and not a professional journalist charged with informing the public. Continue reading →

Magazine Cover Ethics: The Cute Terrorist and The Rolling Stone Boycott

/ Jack Marshall / 73 Comments

tsarnaev-rolling-stone-feature

Is it just my flawed impression, or are Americans increasingly less supportive of free speech, free thought, and artistic expression? If so, that is a worrisome development for our democracy and its culture, and if so, yes, I believe the willingness of our government and its leaders to maneuver around the Bill of Rights in “ends justify the means” conduct has fueled the trend.

Now Rolling Stone is the target. The Sixties magazine icon had the nerve to place Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaevon its latest edition’s cover, looking like a male model, and, we hear, the families of the victims are outraged and their communities prefer their sensibilities over liberty. Jumping on the bandwagon, retailers have decided to make all publications afraid to challenge its readers by announcing that they won’t sell the issue in Boston, and there are hints of an advertiser boycott.

Unfair, un-American, dangerous and silly. Continue reading →

Ethics Quiz: The Ice Cream Sundae Dilemma

/ Jack Marshall / 30 Comments

ice-cream-pic

It just took me more than 10 hours of assorted travel hell to reach this Colorado resort where I’m giving a keynote speech at the Utah Bar’s annual convention. I arrived in my room close to midnight, and I was parched and annoyed. I decided to indulge myself by ordering a nice, cool treat from the late night menu—a vanilla fudge sundae, with roasted pecans, whipped cream, and a cherry on top.

The young and earnest resort employee arrived 20 minutes after my call, and I signed for the dessert. It wasn’t until I had several spoonsful that I noticed something was missing: no pecans.

Your Ethics Quiz:

Should I have called up room service and demanded the promised nuts? Continue reading →

For Those Willing To See It, The Justice Department’s Conduct Regarding George Zimmerman Is Definitive Proof Of Corruption

/ Jack Marshall / 71 Comments
When John Mitchell starts looking good, you know we have an Attorney General problem...

When John Mitchell starts looking good, you know we have an Attorney General problem…

President Obama and Eric Holder are feeling great pressure, says the Washington Post, to bring federal charges against George Zimmerman. All of the President’s most vocal supporters want a federal prosecution to address the “injustice” of the Florida jury’s acquittal of the man who shot Trayvon Martin. Yet informed observers, analysts, academics and attorneys both in and out of the Justice Department say that the likelihood of a conviction would be small or non-existent. A civil rights prosecution would have to prove racial animus and hatred on Zimmerman’s part, and there is just no evidence of that, as the trial just concluded shows.

There is no evidence of a civil rights violation. Since there is no evidence, there is no genuine issue or controversy. Unscrupulous organizations, self-interested activists and ignorant citizens, all apparently firmly in the political camp headed by President Obama and Attorney General Holder, his loyal lieutenant, are calling for a prosecution that will continue a vendetta-based persecution predicated on false assumptions and bias. And my question is… Continue reading →

Ethics Hero: Thomas McGregor

/ Jack Marshall / 23 Comments
"Just paying off my student loans..."

“Just paying off my student loans…”

One of the criteria for admission to the practice of law is proof of good character, and what is considered proof of bad character will keep even a stellar law grad out of the courtroom. Bad character can be inferred from many kinds of conduct—criminal convictions, lies under oath, and failing to meet financial obligations, among others. The latter has occasionally blocked an otherwise qualified young lawyer from entering the profession when unpaid debts get out of hand, and that means that the most prominent unpaid debts in recent headlines, student loans, can sometimes foil a legal career. New York law grad Robert Bowman, last I checked, was still trying to convince the New York Bar that being over $400,000 in debt on his student loans didn’t mean he wasn’t fit to practice law. So far, he hasn’t succeeded.

Maybe he should follow the lead of Thomas McGregor.  Continue reading →

Unethical Blog Post of the Month (Trayvon Martin-George Zimmerman Ethics Train Wreck Division): “The Wire” Creator David Simon

/ Jack Marshall / 22 Comments
Well, that's one more show I won't be watching on Netflix...

Well, that’s one more show I won’t be watching on Netflix…

On his blog, the creator of the critically-praised HBO drama “The Wire” hit all the marks of Trayvon Martin derangement—misstatement of facts, ignorance of the law, presumption of guilt without proof, unreasoning fury, and appeal to violence. David Simon wrote, Continue reading →

Blog Moderation Ethics: The Racists Come To Ethics Alarms

/ Jack Marshall / 9 Comments

I went into this with my eyes open, so I am accountable.

The left's favorite racist, Woodrow Wilson.

The U.S.’s  favorite racist, Woodrow Wilson.

When I poked the hornets nest of the nauseating racist website Chimpmania, I knew I risked having  Ethics Alarms being descended upon by the ideological clones of Simon Legree and Woodrow Wilson. My routine response would be to nix such posts, as I similarly make sure other vile screeds never see the light of a laptop.

However, the Ethics Alarms post in question was about the importance of not censoring vile websites, because of the First Amendment, naturally, but also because people with unethical views are more dangerous when they hide in the shadows. It is important that we know about them and their thought processes; sometimes, with persuasion and patience, we can even bring them back to civilization. It is also important that we consider and understand how such individuals came to have their humanity so darkened and warped.

I am not the government: like Facebook, Ethics Alarms is not obligated by law or principle to allow every comment, no matter how offensive, to be seen and read.  To the contrary, it is obligated to maintain an environment  conducive to productive ethics discourse, enlightenment and debate. In this case, however, I recognized the apparent hypocrisy of extolling the benefits of allowing racists to roam free on the web while personally censoring the comments from the very same racists whose rights the original post was defending. Continue reading →

A Question For The Zimmerman Verdict Protesters: What Do You Think You’re Protesting?

/ Jack Marshall / 127 Comments

justice-for-trayvon-martinThe protests of the George Zimmerman acquittal taking place around the country on campuses and cities has been largely peaceful, which is something, I guess.  Nonetheless, pointless and misguided protests are, in my view, unethical, as those of you who recall my posts about the Occupy movement will recall. They waste public resources, inconvenience bystanders, and risk violence, not to mention trivializing a key tool of democracy. If you are going to demonstrate, you are ethically obligated to have your facts and grievances straight and clear, and a practical objective in mind. By this measure, the post-verdict “Justice for Trayvon” protests fail.

What do protesters mean when they chant, “Justice for Trayvon,” now? What do they want, and why do they think it is reasonable to want it? I have listened to and read so many radio hosts, talking heads, experts, lawyers, activists, callers, friends and relatives on this story, and the truth is this: those who are angry about the verdict and want to sign petitions and carry placards about it cannot articulate a single legitimate reason that is supportable by fact or law. Not one.

I say this not because I am a “Zimmerman supporter.” I am not a Zimmerman supporter. Nor am I a  Trayvon Martin supporter, though I am sorrowful that his young life was cut short. This isn’t a team sport, and it certainly isn’t a game. Those who have used this sad tragedy to divide, polarize and demonize belong on a splintered spit in Hell. I have pleaded for an honest, rational, fair justification, other than raw emotion, for the indignation over this case, requiring only that the facts cited actually apply to what happened in Sanford, and not a litany of racism through the centurues. I haven’t received them, and that is because they don’t exist.

So I ask the protesters, both on the streets and campuses and the pundits, activists, columnists and elected officials:

What is it that you want, and why do you think this episode is the fair and rational place to make your stand? Continue reading →

Unethical Website of the Month: Chimpmania…And The Unethical Petition Opposing It

/ Jack Marshall / 150 Comments

CensorshipA good friend sent me a link to a Change.org petition put up by Heidie Stanton-Sharpe of Mukilteo, Washington, suggesting that I sign it. Heidi had announced that she wanted to take down a website called Chimpmania, writing,

“This website spews hatred and promotes violence against people of color. It targeted my family and posted pictures of my children. It is vile and extreme and if the internet is an international forum we should have regulations about promoting violence against people. It’s not humane, it’s barbaric and there is no place for that type of behavior anywhere in society and most definitely not on a public forum.”

Heidi did not articulate a legal or Constitutional justification for closing down a website (because there is none) , and I was surprised that my friend would support such an effort. Spewing hatred is acceptable free speech for the most part. I think the Daily Kos  and right wing talk show host Mark Levin spew hatred, but I’ll defend to the death their right to do spew it.  “Promoting violence” has to become threatening and genuinely illegal before it qualifies as conduct that can justify censorship; what is inhumane and barbaric is a matter of opinion. Being in the mood to flag civic ignorance as I watched live feeds of a responsible, brave, unquestionably correct jury verdict in the Zimmerman case being protested around the country, I started to write my friend a little primer on the First Amendment. I decided to check out the website in question first, though, and “Cowabunga!” as Bart Simpson used to say* in such situations. Chimpmania is one ugly, hateful racist website. Continue reading →

Comment of the Day: “Incomplete Ethics Observations On George Zimmerman’s Acquittal”

/ Jack Marshall / 140 Comments
The defendant found "not guilty" in "12 Angry Men" was also probably guilty...

The defendant found “not guilty” in “12 Angry Men” was also probably guilty…

Charles Green, a treasured commenter on this blog and wise man, manages to perfectly illustrate, in this comment on the post “Incomplete Ethics Observations On George Zimmerman’s Acquittal,” how completely confused and misguided the liberal establishment and the public generally has become regarding race and justice in this country, and how the Martin case has metastasized the problem.  I’ll let Charles have his say, and return at the end.

“This is the Red State revenge for the OJ verdict. Both were infuriatingly irksome to the opposing party; narrowly legal in the “letter not the spirit” sense of the law; and wildly at odds with decency.

“Jack, you really must stop this silly “if he was white” line of argument. There is no racial equivalency between minority and majority cultures, and in particular between black and white in this culture; you simply can’t substitute one variable for the other and expect logical connections to obtain. Continue reading →