“everybody does it”

When the “Everybody Does It” Excuse Works: Police Dog Cruelty in North Carolina

/ Jack Marshall / 5 Comments

In January, Ethics Alarms named the North Carolina State Personnel Commission an Ethics Dunce for reinstating North Carolina State Trooper Sgt. Charles Jones, who had been fired for abusing one of his police dogs. He had been videoed as he hung the dog, Ricoh, and kicked him for not releasing a chew toy on command. The Commission heard testimony from officers regarding the brutal training methods routinely used by the police, and ruled that by practice and law, what Jones did was not what they call “abuse” in North Carolina, at least when it is done to police dogs.  “Though disturbing, the treatment of Jones’ animal does not rise to the level of ‘abuse,'” the ruling reads, and even if it did, the Commission noted that the Wake County, N.C., animal ordinance specifically exempts police dogs.” In other words, abusing police dogs is acceptable conduct for K-9 trainers.

The ruling came after the testimony of other dog handlers had prompted the Highway Patrol to suspend all use of dogs, anticipating public outrage. Governor Easley also pushed for Jones’s dismissal after the video surfaced, and he made certain that the Commission’s reinstatement of Jones was appealed.

You’re not going to like the result. Continue reading →

Unethical Website: Hillbuzz

/ Jack Marshall / 8 Comments

Hillbuzz is the right wing website leading the charge to get Bristol Palin, who can’t dance a lick, voted as the best celebrity dancer on TV’s  “Dancing With The Stars” because, illogically enough, the site’s operators like her mother. Makes sense to me! Actually, it only makes sense in that I am familiar with how self-absorbed political fanatics on the Right and Left think, which is often inherently unethical. In this case, Hillbuzz thinks it’s reasonable to louse up the fun of a dancing competition and turn it into an expression of Tea Party power. Continue reading →

The Internet Censorship Bill and Escalating Abuse of Government Power: Why Do We Continue to Trust These People?

/ Jack Marshall / 4 Comments

Yesterday, the Senate Judiciary Committee unanimously approved a bill giving the U.S. Attorney General the power to shut down any website with a court order, if  he determines that copyright infringement is  “central to the activity” of the site.  It doesn’t matter if the website has actually committed a crime, and there is no trial, which means that the law is a slam dunk violation of the U.S. Constitution.  The Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act (COICA) is a little goody bought by the lobbyists and PACs of Hollywood, the recording industry and the big media companies, to block the rampant internet file sharing that has cost them a lot of money in lost sales and profits over the past decade.

I am adamantly opposed to filesharing and the ethically dishonest arguments used to defend it, most of which begin with “Everybody does it.” I sympathize with the artists whose work is being stolen, and the companies who have complained to Congress. But all the strong condemnation of filesharing by lawmakers and corporate executives doesn’t change a central fact: the Constitution says you can’t do what COICA allows. It says this in at least two places: the First Amendment, which prohibits government interference with free speech, and the Fifth Amendment, which decrees that property can not be taken from citizens without Due Process of Law. A law that lets a government official just turn off a website without a hearing or showing of proof? Outrageous. and unconstitutional. Continue reading →

“How Not To Apologize” by Cook’s Source Editor Judith Griggs

/ Jack Marshall / 11 Comments

Not many of you chose to read about the “Cook’s Source” fiasco, which is a shame. It is admittedly a tiny blip on the ethics radar screen–a dispute between a writer and a narrow audience website that launched an Internet vigilante movement—but there are many useful lessons to be learned. Now one of the two key figures, “Cook’s Source” editor Judith Griggs, has generously provided us with yet another: how not to apologize. Continue reading →

Theft, Disrespect and Retribution: the “Cook’s Source” Debacle

/ Jack Marshall / 2 Comments

This is another example of how ethical insights can emerge from the most unlikely episodes, as one obscure website stole material from another, and ignited web vigilante justice on a grand scale.

Medieval  food expert and enthusiast Monica Gaudio learned from a friend that the e-magazine Cook’s Source had taken her online article about the origins of apple pie and reprinted it without her permission. Assuming it was an innocent error, Gaudio wrote the site and requested an apology, as well as a $130 donation to the Columbia School of Journalism to make amends for what was a blatant copyright violation.

The managing editor at Cook’s Source, Judith Griggs, didn’t recognize a generous and reasonable offer when she saw one. Instead of proper contrition for taking Gaudio’s work without permission, Griggs decide to go for a new high in arrogant defiance, writing…

“Yes Monica, I do know about copyright laws. … But honestly Monica the web is considered ‘public domain’ and you should be happy we just didn’t ‘lift’ your whole article and put someone else’s name on it! It happens a lot, clearly more than you are aware of, especially on college campuses, and the workplace. If you took offence and are unhappy, I am sorry, but you as a professional should know that the article we used written by you was in very bad need of editing, and is much better now than was originally. … We put some time into rewrites, you should compensate me!”

Seldom are so many ethics fouls packed into so few words. Note that: Continue reading →

Ethics Dunces: Jack Conway Defenders

/ Jack Marshall / 2 Comments

Democrat Jack Conway has been anointed by fair commentators of the Left, Right and center as the hands down winner of , as the New Republic called it, the “Most Despicable Political Ad of the Year.” The attack on opponent Rand Paul, which he continued in the debate between the candidates for the open Senate seat in Kentucky, consisted of questioning the propriety of Paul’s religious beliefs, making an issue out of a college prank, and characterizing the prank in question as a crime,  though the anonymous “victim” has acknowledged that she knew it was intended in jest and did not feel threatened. As Jason Zengerle noted, “…no candidate over the age of, say, 30, should be held politically accountable for anything he or she did in college—short of gross academic misconduct or committing a felony…and more importantly, a politician’s religious faith should simply be off-limits. If it’s disgusting when conservatives question Barack Obama’s Christianity, then it’s disgusting when Jack Conway questions Rand Paul’s.”  This, from the same journalist who originally reported the tale of Paul’s various rebellions against the Christian pressures at Baylor when he was a student there, including the faux worship of “Aqua Buddha.” Continue reading →

“The Ethicist” and His Definition of “Unethical”

/ Jack Marshall / Leave a comment

Eureka! Bingo! At last!

While explaining in this week’s column why he hesitates to label a manifestly unethical practice unethical, The New York Times Magazine’s ethicist, Randy Cohen, clarified a couple of questions that have been bothering me for quite a while. Why do so many people react so violently to my conclusion that they have done something unethical? And why does Randy Cohen, a.k.a. “The Ethicist” so frequently endorse unethical conduct, especially dishonesty, when he believes it is motivated by virtuous motives? Continue reading →

Congressional Ethics and Race: A Quiz

/ Jack Marshall / 2 Comments

QUESTION ONE: If you are the House Ethics Committee, and you find that investigations of two prominent House members have resulted in convincing evidence of serious wrongdoing and ethics violations, and they both are African-American, the most ethical course is to: Continue reading →

Charlie Rangel’s Defense and Buster Olney’s Fallacy

/ Jack Marshall / 1 Comment

Charlie Rangel’s defense against the ethics charges against him is, in part this: I’m not the only one, so it’s unfair to punish me.” From the Washington Post:

“He was not the only lawmaker to solicit donations in this manner, his lawyers argue, saying that peers who did the same thing were not punished. With a trial of Rangel by the House ethics committee possible by mid-September, his legal team reached across the Capitol to point a finger at Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who helped raise money for a center named for him at the University of Louisville. Rangel’s team cited similarities with the recently deceased Sen. Robert C. Byrd (D-W.Va.) and with former Republican senators Trent Lott (Miss.) and Jesse Helms (N.C.).”

OK, a question: what’s the matter with that argument? Continue reading →

The Ethics of Legalized Gambling: A Debate

/ Jack Marshall / 11 Comments

Over at “The Economist” website, two articulate and well-qualified opponents are debating the wisdom of state sanctioned gambling. The debate will be “settled” by a vote of the site’s readers.

The two advocates cover the topic thoroughly and well, and I will  link to the debate rather than attempt to supplement it in detail, except to say this: Continue reading →