Hello!
The comments on this profile are unclaimed and thus are unverified.
Do they belong to you? Claim these comments.
Andy
Is this you? Claim Profile »
11 months ago
in All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing on The Inquisitr
"...what other way is there to hold institutions such as this accountable when they do the wrong thing? Would not this behavior continue without drawing attention to it?"
There is (first) the option of working one-on-one, directly with the offending organization or individuals. That Hawk chose to immediately make this a public conflict, instead of at least attempting to wrest any acceptable result via direct interaction (including investigating whether he might be entitled to legal relief) shows that not every reasonable avenue was explored or used before resorting to (literal) name-calling. Whether he was wronged is an open issue, since we don't have all sides. But whether he had options other than publicly defaming someone whom he believes had wronged him, that is clear: he had other options but leapt straight to the blogger's prerogative: denouncing someone with whom he could at least have tried to resolve the conflict. By his own admission he threatened to blog about it before he was even ejected from the museum.
He's allowed to blog, but it shouldn't be the first resort, especially if he's naming names. You can call this a "battle over personal rights and freedoms," but you still need to ask whether he exhausted other more reasonable means before taking it public.
There is (first) the option of working one-on-one, directly with the offending organization or individuals. That Hawk chose to immediately make this a public conflict, instead of at least attempting to wrest any acceptable result via direct interaction (including investigating whether he might be entitled to legal relief) shows that not every reasonable avenue was explored or used before resorting to (literal) name-calling. Whether he was wronged is an open issue, since we don't have all sides. But whether he had options other than publicly defaming someone whom he believes had wronged him, that is clear: he had other options but leapt straight to the blogger's prerogative: denouncing someone with whom he could at least have tried to resolve the conflict. By his own admission he threatened to blog about it before he was even ejected from the museum.
He's allowed to blog, but it shouldn't be the first resort, especially if he's naming names. You can call this a "battle over personal rights and freedoms," but you still need to ask whether he exhausted other more reasonable means before taking it public.
1 reply
Duncan Riley
I think given the circumstances, in which he attempted to ask the person in question to contact others there or go higher up the chain constitutes at least an attempt to keep it internal. Did they not escalate it first?
