Subjective Judgement: A Comparison

When we look at the instance of Darren Wilson shooting Michael Brown, judgement seems to line up largely according to political lines. Of course those who had seen the shooting, who had no dog in the hunt and who gave anonymous testimony were probably the most accurate in terms of what happened and when. But the rest of the "witnesses" seem to cling to what they want the story to be even when it is refuted by evidence. They would never tolerate that kind of treatment of one of their own. So it breaks down into a game of "Who's The Hypocrite?"

Twitter also plays these games. I like twitter-probably a little too much. It's a good way to get information quickly and allows for a free flow of back and forth if you choose. Twitter is not the only site that has this kind of dubious ambiance, but it's the best known. My biggest problem with twitter is the nagging tattle tail enforcement of their "rules". Twitter's "rules" seem to change at will. And enforcement of those rules is based on whichever little meathead is in charge of the site at the time. For example: The New York Times published the address of Darren Wilson opening up not just him, but all of his neighbors, to attack. The two writers who did this hid behind a cloak of arrogant journalistic hubris. A few hours later two other websites posted the writers' addresses-one in Chicago and the other in New Orleans. I copied them and posted them AS DID MANY OTHER PEOPLE. My account was suspended. 

Keep in mind that tax rolls are public records. While I didn't do the heavy lifting of sifting through tax rolls, I don't think suspending my account makes sense when other subsequent people posted them as well and seemingly were not banned. Furthermore, if it is wrong for me-a private citizen who COPIED addresses from two other blogs then why is it not wrong for these self-important trumped up reporters to post Wilson's address exposing him and his neighbors to violence? What kind of game is twitter playing here? If they want to be the arbiters of what is right and wrong, fine. But by God do not get on a high horse over distant reporters' addresses when you allow them to point out a man who's life is in danger by publicly issue threats from the New Black Panthers. If it is wrong for one, it is wrong for all. I am willing to abide by that, but are the New York Times or Twitter?