sickening

Before I move onto the ethical issues I believe this article brings up I must first state how SICK this makes me feel.  Like come on are you serious, what is wrong with you (neighbors).

Moving on, the Journal did do the right thing.  From an ethical privacy standpoint, they could not release their names.  First of all, like it stated in the article numerous times, until charges were filed and a case were to be brought against the neighbors there is no reason to put the names into the article.  If they were to release the names which would bring tons of scrutiny and hate towards the neighbors and nothing were to happen to them lawfully which is the case here, the newspaper could be charged with slandering ones name.  This would cause much more of a headache for the newspaper when they could easily avoid it.

Now from the other side, the Post can be seen as doing the right thing as well.  Ethically, it is the freedom of speech, which allows the press to write the story however they would like it.  If they feel that the story is better told and felt with the names of the neighbors included that is their right to do so.  Personally, I would put the names in because ultimately screw them for what they did and I believe everyone should be aware of who it was.  Furthermore, I believe that this is an issue of future safety as well. Members of the community should know who did this and be aware of their surroundings, to help prevent future issues of cyberbullying.  If I were a parent in the community I would feel the same way as I am sure most parents did, I WOULD WANT TO KNOW!

Privacy and community seem to the most obvious ethical perspectives seen in this case.  On one hand the Journal chose to keep the neighbor’s names private because there had been no case filed against the neighbors and therefore giving the Journal in their eyes no real reason to include the names.  Privacy is very important and should be respected.  Now on the other hand, why would you keep the names hidden when they (neighbors) don’t seem to see the difference between right and wrong.  Now I am not saying that two wrongs make a right, I am saying that for the betterment of the community, it was the right thing to do by releasing the names.  It is the ethical right of the community to know what is going on in their area and who is to blame for the issue to begin with.  This is a tough question because the more and more I think about it I really do not know what the right answer is, but I do feel strongly that because we are literally dealing with life and death, the answer for me is clear.

I find community as being a more compelling argument over ethical issues because it could affect more people if held secret and possibly allow future problems to arise.  We are dealing with a tragedy here and in order to help prevent future tragedies from occurring, people must be dealt with accordingly and releasing the name of those who are to “blame” is a step in the right direction.

Social networks are not to blame in this situation, but there is a lesson for them to learn.  Ethically, websites such as Facebook and Myspace should feel some sort of obligation to help prevent this from happening as much as they can.  Truthfully, there is no real way to stop it from happening because of the amount of people who use these sites, but there are measures that can be taken to prevent and persecute future instances.