There is so much crazy and stupid ethics stuff out there I just woke up from a crummy night’s sleep and am exhausted already.
Last night, trying to have an intelligent discussion with a lawyer friend who used to be intelligent, I raised the incident I wrote about yesterday and which I continue to think is an unusually important one for the legal profession today: the ABA’s president refusing to be honest-–in front of cameras and under oath—when asked in a Congressional hearing about its extreme woke positions. My friend started screaming at me, literally screaming, with a “whataboutism” attack: what about Trump, what about Todd Blanche, what about the Supreme Court, what about the ballroom, what about the Kennedy Center. It was scary. I was tempted to have her sedated.
Weird things keep appearing on my screen too. Lindsey Graham’s sister, who has no qualifications whatsoever to be a U.S. Senator (and maiden names don’t count) announced that getting appointed to a position she has no business being in isn’t enough, she now is going to run for a full term. A female sportswriter suggested that WNBA star Caitin Clarke complaining about being mugged on the basketball court by the black lesbians who have virtually put a hit out on her has put them at risk of ending up like Emmit Till. Megan Rapinoe, the over-the-hill women’s soccer star who thinks she has something to contribute to society besides hitting a soccer ball with her head, actually said that President Trump was responsible for the U.S. losing in the World Cup and that opposition to biological men playing women’s sports is “an attack on women in society.”Prof. Turley has a post up about how Democrats are now referring to belief in the Constitution as “nostalgia.” The Secret Service has opened more than 10,000 threat investigations this year, which is 40% increase from the same period last year. Yesterday Whoopie Goldberg, on ABC’s “news ” show “The View,” ended the program by ranting, “We need to get out and make changes, because we need to block [Trump’s Presidency] every way we can! That’s all. Vote, vote, vote, vote, vote, vote, vote, vote, vote, vote.Don’t wait until November. Start looking now.” That is a pure violation of FCC rules, and if the FCC dared to act on it, we would be hearing about Trump trying to censor the press.
But by all means, write about what you want to.
This cheered me up yesterday for about 30 seconds…
Ethics Alarms 
Has anyone been following the Shiloh Hendrix case? Can someone explain to me (a non-lawyer) how it only went to trial, but a jury was able to deliberate for 9 hours and find a guilty verdict? How is this not a free-speech violation?
They charged her with disorderly conduct after a tirade in which she repeated the same racial slur repeatedly and after the child’s father started filming which was foolish of her.
Disorderly conduct is a legitimate charge – whether it should have been filed in this case I can’t say.
I would say that people are far too quick to start filming others at their worst and the father did tell her they would see what the internet says which demonstrated his intent to cause her problems.
So, the ethics issue:
Child taking things that don’t belong to him. Unethical. He is a child, though, and apparently autistic (though I don’t know how severe the autism is).
Victim calls him a racial slur. Unethical. He’s a child. He shouldn’t be called names. There are better ways to handle it.
Father taking video and expressing his intent to put it on the internet. Unethical.
Victim doubling down on her racial slurs on video. Unethical and idiotic.
Police arresting and charging woman after the viral video based on the video evidence. I’m going to say they are skirting ethics here. Her conduct may have been disorderly but I’m pretty sure she was arrested and charged to send a message about her words. This is Rochester, after all.
Jury finding her guilty. I don’t know what evidence they saw. I’m leaving them out of it.
It looks like a mini ethics train wreck to me.
Had not heard about this. I see she is a Nordic beauty and the eight-year-old and the videographer are Somalis.
There’s certainly a narrative at play here. Overseas, some white Europeans have accused black African migrants of falsely accusing white people of racism, attacking them and getting more sympathy from the police than the white victim. A young man in Ireland bled out on the street last month under such a circumstance.
In this case, though, there’s no question that Shiloh overreacted to the child and said inappropriate words.
Language police. Being rude is now a misdemeanor. I guess we should be thankful she wasn’t charged with a felony.
The more I think about it, the more preposterous this is. What statute or ordinance did she violate by calling a kid a nigger? Disorderly conduct? Yelling at a stranger who’s not in a position of authority in a park is disorderly conduct? Absurd. This sounds like something that would happen in the UK. A miscarriage of justice.
Golden: “Child taking things that don’t belong to him. Unethical.” Nope. “Unethical” applied to a person is a judgment about moral agency: it says the person grasped (or should have grasped) that something was wrong and did it anyway. If a child genuinely lacks the capacity to understand that the purse isn’t his to go through — whether from age, developmental stage, or anything else — then the condition for that judgment isn’t met. He can’t be unethical for the same reason a dog can’t be unethical for stealing food off a counter: the concept doesn’t attach without the relevant understanding. 0/1.
Golden (paraphrasing): Racial slurs are unethical. 1/2.
Golden (paraphrasing): Father filming incident is unethical. The slur is an act of harm against the child — targeted, unprovoked, degrading. Filming is a defensive/documentary act by the victim’s parent: it creates evidence, it can protect the child, and it can deter further harassment by the person being filmed. 1/3
Golden’s ethics batting average = 0.333. At least that’s good for baseball, I believe.
Nope, the ability for someone to grasp right or wrong doesn’t change whether or not the act is ethical or unethical it only to what degree or manner a person can be right corrected/punished for an unethical act.
The act vs. the actor is an important distinction, one that you’re not making for some reason. So, the dog’s act of taking someone else’s wheel of brie from the table was unethical? If “unethical” means “contrary to the rules adults expect people to follow,” then one could label the act unethical, but not the child. And there’s a problem even with that. It’s not “contrary to the rules adults expect young autistic children to follow.” So, it’s not simply that the child lacks the requisite moral agency. It is also false in that case that the child’s behavior violated a norm that applies to the child in the same way it applies to competent adults. Michael West, I would be happy to give me ethics lessons, but I’ve got a bank robbery at 4:30 so perhaps sometime in, say, 10-15 years?
My comment most clearly differentiates between the act and actor.
It’s unethical to take something that isn’t yours.
It’s also unethical to rigorously punish someone who reasonably does not know that is wrong.
It is ethical to seek to correct whatever deficiency is in the person so that they do know it is wrong.
It’s unethical to know one of your charges cannot ever, for one reason or another, come to this realization and not live your life at full attention of this concern.
The dog is unethical for taking something not his? The autistic child is unethical for unwittingly touching or even taking something from an unattended purse which might be, for all he knew, a part of the natural environment? Are you putting things in terms of moral agency or “contrary to the rules adults expect people who are able to understand the rules to follow?” Are you’re now shifting the entire ethical breach to the parent who didn’t or couldn’t see or expect a purse to be left open to an autistic child in a playground? Also state the rules by which you are isolating the act itself (I tried to help you above) and calling it unethical when there’s no moral agency to which the term can be attached (except maybe the father for not seeing the wayward purse). You may think you’ve answered all those question. You haven’t. You’ve asserted things, which is fine, of course; but you haven’t explained them. And the things you’ve asserted — if they were clearer in their presentation — might easily be shown to be wrong. Want to put your ideas to the test? State them clearly with respect to their key underlying assumptions/rules. I’m curious. You have the floor.
“Dog”?
‘kawaii’ I think was offering a hypothetical. Not equating the autistic African American child to a dog.
I think.
Yes.
If you’re a parent of a wildly neurodivergent child and you know this, as much as it sucks, you’re obligated to accommodate other people for the situations your child may cause.
Just like everybody else is obligated by their children to some degree or another.
Also, I directly responded to your general claim about conduct. Not to the specific episode discussed in the main post.
Conduct can be unethical even while the individual actor can’t be held accountable for it.
When and where the individual can be held accountable for unethical conduct can we then say the individual is unethical also.
“Conduct can be unethical even while the individual actor can’t be held accountable for it.” Unethical implies a conscious violation of ethical standards by an agent who knows better. You have not convinced me that a dog’s taking a piece of cheese from a table is unethical (his action, not the canine), nor that an autistic young boy’s act (the act, not the boy) was unethical. You can say it was, but you haven’t shown that it was. And yes, indeed, I’m not saying the boy is a dog; I’m saying the fact that the boy is a human being and not a canine itself doesn’t make it suddenly an unethical act if the moral agency is null in both cases. I see you’re trying, Michael, but as the old lady on the Wendy’s commercials used to say: “Where’s the beef?”
Ethics are for people and don’t apply to dogs.
But if an owner knows their dog consistently takes food and does nothing to restrain the dog in the presence of other people’s food, the owner is, indeed, unethical.
PS: I’m sorry but because it takes 12 hours for the posts to show, I can’t be sure I’m actually posting — so there might be some overlap.
I’m sorry, I don’t know why WordPress is picking on you. It just does this to certain commenters.
I deserve it
The universe adjusting?
Reports are that Shiloh Hendrix has raised over $900,000 via GiveSendGo after launching the campaign to relocate and protect her Family following multiple threats. Wonder if the Rochester City Attorney will investigate any of those threats?
The guy following, harassing, and filming her was a bystander, Sharmake Beyle Omar, not the father of the kid she yelled at.
Omar was originally charged in 2022 with third-degree criminal sexual conduct and fifth-degree criminal sexual conduct in a felony case accusing him and his brother of sexually assaulting a 16-year-old female who had run away from a foster care placement.
In 2025, prosecutors dismissed the case “in the interest of justice”.
Minnesota is a wonderful place for “Justice”.
As AM Golden alluded above, it’s a mini ethics trainwreck.
One that could have been solved by a simple conversation between adults.
But it wasn’t. They both behaved like rotten curs.
“Ethics are for people and don’t apply to dogs. But if an owner knows their dog consistently takes food and does nothing to restrain the dog in the presence of other people’s food, the owner is, indeed, unethical.” I see you’re backpedaling, Michael! 😉 I’ll take that as a cue. Nice chatting with you.
That’s…
Not backpedaling in the slightest.
Michael, You pronounced the act of the child unethical, full stop. Not whether he was to blame, but whether the act itself was unethical. Now you admit that the act wouldn’t be unethical if a dog committed it. It has to be a person. Doesn’t matter if the person is a professional thief or a young autistic child. “People” also includes newborns. If a newborn somehow grabbed someone’s unattended purse in the delivery room, which is possible, is that’s unethical? You’ve side stepped the issue of moral agency about three times now hoping it will go away. From a purely ethical point of view: good plan!
It’s unethical to take something that isn’t yours.
It’s also unethical to rigorously punish someone who reasonably does not know that is wrong.
It is ethical to seek to correct whatever deficiency is in the person so that they do know it is wrong.
It’s unethical to know one of your charges cannot ever, for one reason or another, come to this realization and not live your life at full attention of this concern.
A new born’s atavistic response let to him taking the doctor’s stethoscope. Unethical! I’d like to see your publication on that subject!
A new born’s atavistic response let to him taking the doctor’s stethoscope. Unethical! I’d like to see your publication on that subject!
WordPress hates me.
Clearly. I had to rescue this from spam.
I’ve gotten you to it but I’ll leave you at the watering hole.
By ducking the issue of moral agency and shifting your argument from one actor to the other like an intellectual shell game, you’ve led me to nothing but the conclusion that you are avoiding the fact — even the possibility — that you spoke without thinking, as did your friend Golden. Whether that is your modus operandi, or just a temporary “glitch” in your verbal output, is unknown to me because I don’t follow your intellectual “work,” but your funny Freudian projection kinda suggests the former.
Either you don’t read or you can’t read. I’m not sure of which at this point.
Have a great day!
Either you don’t think or you can’t think. I’m not sure which at this point Have a nice day.
Gentlemen, gentlemen! Fighting words!
LOL! I have students who can follow their own arguments better. Very rarely one who can’t. But I have to be nice to them anyway — they’re my “clients” in today’s education system.
I live in something of an ethical buble. But we were dining in Savanah, GA yesterday and when the bill came it was 200$.
What I expected was 168$ after tip for our party of 6.After reviewing the bill, there was an automatic tip of 20% + and an “additonal” charge of 35$ for no apparent reason with some message in small print to consider an additional charge.
I could not change the tip(which i do a mandatory 20% no matter what on principle). But I had to figure out how to get rid of the 35$ charge and the payment site would not allow 0$.
Somehow I got it taken off the bill. But I will never go back.
Tipping ‘ethics’ is beyond out of control.
Many of you here express frustration and despair that other people refuse to see the flaws in their reasoning. If you want to handle disagreements with minimal stress, learn what it takes for good ideas to be taken seriously, or just take comfort in knowing how people can succeed at making the world better, you will probably enjoy reading the Substack I have finally started: https://visionaryvocabularies.substack.com/
The first series of weekly articles examines overlooked aspects of conflict resolution and explores constructive political discussions. Later posts will have approaches for finding clarity and meaning, and for learning skills that come naturally to other people. If there’s a particular topic or situation giving you grief, I’d be happy to help.
I really like this substack site of yours. I’ve read a few articles and I think they’re great. The article that used chihuahua behavior as an analogy for human behavior was nice. My own dog just lies there — like a metaphor for severe alcoholism. And I do have a problem with raising my voice — but 90% of the time that my kids think I’m raising my voice I’m not aware of it. I think I’m speaking naturally. I grew up in NYC so naturally I bark without even knowing it. I might say: “Hi, how are you?” and they hear “BARK BARK BARK…” I think your sight could make a new man out of me!
Is Rapino arguing that persons who transitioned from male to female should play for the women’s national soccer team?
“Is Rapino arguing that persons who transitioned from male to female should play for the women’s national soccer team?”
May just give ’em a chance to beat a U-15 boys team…
PWS
Somehow I feel like the team from Belgium was more responsible for the US team losing than Trump, rightfully advocating for Americans on the world stage facing a wrongful judgment call as it seems like an American president ought to do, was.
There’s no FCC rule that prohibits political commentary or advocacy by talk show hosts.
You’re not paying attention. The View is operated by ABC News. It is officially a news show. That’s why it isn’t subject to Equal Time rules.
sorry what FCC rule are you saying they broke?
Equal time only applies when a candidate appears on air
Broadcast licenses from the FCC are conditional on the privileged networks operating in the public interest, which means no blatant partisan electioneering. ABC News has a right to free speech but not a right to a free broadcast band, which the government owns. ABC can call “The View” an entertainment show, which would make it vulnerable to Equal Time rules in elections, or it can operate responsibly as a news show and a public benefit, which means no outbursts like Whoopi telling viewers to vote against Trump. They can editorialize and endorse…not campaign for one party or another. If ABC doesn’t like it, then it can go to cable like MSNOW. Oh, if the FCC pulled ABC’s license I’m sure there would be litigation. Good. I’d like to see Disney/ABC defend “The View.”
The public interest standard has never once been enforced against political commentary and section 326 of the very act you’re citing says “Nothing in this Act shall be understood or construed to give the Commission the power of censorship” and no FCC regulation may “interfere with the right of free speech by means of radio communication” The government owning the band doesn’t buy it a veto over opinions and Congress explicitly withheld that power so your “editorialize and endorse, but not campaign” distinction exists in no statute, regulation, or case and even it clears her since editorializing against a noncandidate in a nonelection year is your own permitted category. The license threat is irrelevant…networks don’t hold broadcast licenses, individual stations do, and no station has ever lost one over a host’s opinion. So name the actual rule she violated, or concede there isn’t one.
It’s a license for a public utility. The FCC has authority to void a licensee that doesn’t act in the public interest. That isn’t censorship. It is enforcement of conduct. If the view featured pornographic content, it could similarly be sanctioned, though pornography is protected speech.
The fact that the public interest requirement hasn’t been sufficiently enforced doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist, or shouldn’t be enforced.The Communications Act of 1934, Section 309 requires the FCC to grant broadcast licenses based on the “public interest, convenience, and necessity.” Carr argues that broadcasters who air “hoaxes and distortions” are not serving the public interest and therefore risk their licenses at renewal time.
Section 309 is a licensing standard but not a conduct rule and you still haven’t named the rule she broke and I’ve asked a few times.
Your pornography example actually proves my point. Broadcast indecency is sanctionable because Congress passed a specific statute creating that authority and “Public interest” alone was never enough which is why there’s no equivalent for political opinion and Section 326 bars inventing one.
also “Hasn’t been enforced doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be” concedes your original claim. You’ve gone from saying it was a “pure violation” to “ no rule exists but one should.” And like 90 years of non enforcement isn’t oversight…it’s the FCC repeatedly repealing its own content rules because it couldn’t lawfully justify policing viewpoints. Even Carr’s hoaxes and distortions theory doesn’t reach it since an opinion about a president is neither. So really the position you’re actually defending is an FCC that judges broadcast content for truth/opinions and pulls licenses accordingly. You should say that and be honest about it but stop calling it an existing rule.
Really? Your point is that I called Section 309 a “rule” when it really is a standard? On the FCC webpage? A Standard that must be followed is a rule.
The rule does exist. I quoted it. The fact that it hasn’t been routinely and rigidly enforced doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. Do US immigration laws exist even though the Biden administration ignored them? Yes.
You have every right to argue that the naked partisan politicking and electioneering on The View shouldn’t result in FCC action, but you cannot keep arguing that there is no basis in FCC rules and regulation for that action to be pursued.
You’re just sealioning now. Not cool. Move on.
And by the way, I’m on to you. You have literally never registered a comment here that wasn’t a “gotcha!” nit-picking or reflexively critical (or insulting) attack on my wording or topic. You’re trolling. For example, when I wrote that my arguments with the Trump Deranged “always ends up on non-substantive outrages,” you wrote
“Curious, you’re claiming your friend never ends up on substantive outrages? Not one? Ever?” I wrote, “I’m not “claiming” anything: I just had the discussion and accurately related it. I mentioned the alleged ballroom donor “scandal,” which sounded substantive until I checked the facts. I also stated that she alerted me to the unethical IRS law suit settlement. Also substantive.” So you just misrepresented what I wrote. Check the Comment policies under “Putting words in my mouth.” Keep that up, and see what happens.”
You wrote, “apologies Jack. To clarify, you said “The discussion always ends up on non-substantive outrages” does that mean the discussion always ends up on non-substantive outrages and never substantive outrages?”
I wrote, “Yes. As in defaults to stuff like “And that blue in the reflecting pool is ugly! And why does anyone need a ballroom that holds 9000 guests? And he’s putting his name on everything, like a king!” because that’s where the rage lies. This happens when one doesn’t fall in line with the substantive complaints. For example, she talked about Trump defying court orders. It’s not a simple topic. Many of the orders allegedly defied were also challenged as illegal, and many were, I believe, indeed illegal. The pattern of Leftist federal judges halting national programs has been condemned by members of the Supreme Court, and it is an abuse of power. Personally, I believe that some of Trump’s resistance is necessary and justified, but it is gutsy. But when my friend’s arguments don’t convince me, it’s back to the mean tweets and the 250 dollar bill.”
Like a dog with a bone, you replied, “Thanks for clarifying Jack. I’d just note that when I first ask you, you yourself cited the IRS issue as substantive, which contradicts “always non-substantive.” And then you said “yes” when I asked if you meant always and never substantive…So the “always” appears to be contradictory by your own account. Was the IRS comment from your friend really the only substantive claim she’s made to you? As you admit?”
Then EC put in his oar, and you declared victory by writing, “ok thanks for clearing that up. So your comment that it’s “always non-substantive” was made in error. That makes more sense.”
I don’t have time for this crap. I’m sure it makes you feel superior, but it doesn’t advance the point of the blog, and interferes with good faith arguments. Do better.
I’ll see you in court” settles it I think. You don’t need intense litigation to enforce an existing rule…Litigation is how you create an interpretation that doesn’t exist yet. That’s all I was saying…no current rule prohibits what she did. You now agree and you just want a new one. That’s fine… how it’s been interpreted before isn’t “irrelevant” it’s the whole ballgame! 90 years of interpretation is what the law is right now, it’s what courts apply and what determines whether it was a violation with Whoopi. You can argue the interpretation should change going forward, which is the litigation you’re predicting, but you can’t retroactively declare her in violation of an interpretation that doesn’t exist yet. Moving on.
To be clear…my point was never rule versus standard, you can call it whatever you want. My point is that no rule, standard, or anything else prohibiting what Whoopi did exists. Section 309 exists, but read it… it says licenses are granted in the public interest. It contains no prohibition on political commentary. Nothing in it defines an on-air opinion as an offense, no FCC decision in 90 years has ever read it that way, and Section 326 of the same Act expressly forbids reading it that way. So your immigration analogy fails at the first step in that immigration law defines specific offenses that allegedly went unenforced. You can’t point to non-enforcement of an offense that…isn’t an actual offense. And asking you to name it isn’t sealioning. It took five exchanges to get from ‘pure violation of FCC rules’ to ‘a basis for action to be pursued at renewal.’ That’s a real difference, and I’ll take it as the answer. Happy to leave it there
1. “allegedly went unenforced.” They went unenforced. Cut out the sophistry.
2. The issue is what is in “the public interest.” The current FCC takes the position that non-news direct electioneering is not in the public interest, and I agree. I’ll see you in court. How the regs have been interpreted before the news media went nuts is irrelevant to the current situation. What The View did and does was not editorializing or endorsing or commentary, all of which are permitted. It was pure campaigning (“electioneering”). As I said, properly cracking down on that will involve intense litigation.
3. If you think it’s appropriate for broadcast news programs to say “Everybody vote against X,” fine. You’re wrong. It is not in the public’s interest,and doing that is not broadcast news journalism. The FCC should warn ABC and act if the warning is ignored.
End of discussion. Move on.
Some moron at Virgin cruises decided that their Mediterranean gay cruise should include two port stops in Turkey and one in Egypt. They’re *shocked* that Turkey and Egypt are denying them entry:
https://www.cnn.com/2026/07/02/europe/turkey-cruise-lgbtq-american-blocked-intl
Now we have this tying into Trump derangement syndrome. Multiple videos have surfaced where the participants on the cruise are blaming Trump. They’re saying that Trump has exported his anti-gay rhetoric to the middle east and that’s why Turkey and Egypt are banning the cruise.
I think this one is so absurd that even not the Bee could have come up with this one.
Here is an example of a non-video tangentially related: https://www.reddit.com/r/lgbt/comments/1uw9p4r/comment/oxhu5ej/. It is blaming the Heritage foundation instead of Trump. Yeah, American’s are turning the middle east homophobic.
https://x.com/aisarcore/status/2080730569848303793?s=46