We live in an interesting period, in which overt homophobia in the elite classes (of business, media, and the academy) is no longer socially acceptable. But only a short time ago, it was widely practiced. So today, we have a lot of people – very much alive and very much in positions of influence – who have a record of gay bashing that they would prefer just fade away. This is essentially a gay version of the George Wallace problem, i.e., how a prominent overt racist in the 1940s-early 60s manages to expiate his sins after racism falls out of favor with the elite.

I would love to see stories about these people, perhaps with an effort to follow up with them as to what they think about their former conduct. By way of example, we could follow up on the Dartmouth sorority girls who held a party to celebrate the death of Rock Hudson in 1985. What do these present-day doctors and lawyers think about themselves? Or perhaps we could check in with a current professor at Brown University, Richard Eder, who in 1976 wrote a homophobic movie review for The New York Times in which he opined that “too many male homosexual stomachs, arms and faces at too short a range” spoiled the movie and further opined that he had a “physical distaste” for gay people. BTB might call him and ask him whether he still has that distaste and whether and how it attaches to his current gay students at Brown. There are many other examples, ranging from the modest to the egregious, from the 1970s and 80s.

These people should be reminded of their record and, if feasible, they should be asked what they think of it. The latter part would involve nothing more than a phone call. Their present-day opinions should be fairly reported. I think this would be a great new feature for BTB.

If a news outlet can be persuaded to omit the names of persons arrested in a raid because disclosure will embarrass, how can any reader/viewer/listener ever be sure that the mayor (or the archbishop of San Francisco), when arrested for drunk driving, hasn’t been offered a similar favor? Or that other sorts of embarrassments can be avoided if you know the right people or make the right payment. And so on.

I completely understand the damages suffered by persons arrested–but not yet tried–for crimes; I think it is wholly undeserved. And I blame the authorities for that damage, not the journalists, whose job at present is to report fact, not withhold it.

The loss of journalistic credibility is a tragedy for the whole community, and credibility is all but impossible to regain. I’d rather have an all-or-nothing approach to crime in my town than always to be suspicious that things are going unreported because special arrangements keep them hidden.

That being said, I’d be completely open to definition of a reporting threshold meant to avoid unnecessary and undeserved damage, while naming names when the threshold is passed.

There is another American version of the pillory: the perp walk. A punishment heaped even on innocent people.

Protection against “kangaroo courts” comes from habeas corpus, the right to a fair and speedy trial, the right to due process, the right to face one’s accuser, the right to a lawyer… but certainly not from publicly shaming the accused. And yes, there are secret arrests in the U.S., to wit, those of terror suspects.

The public nature of arrests was merely one of the unique features of the new nation’s laws, but it remains one of the most important to its citizens, and most protective of them. It grew from experience with, and a desire to avoid, English “Star Chambers”–essentially, official kangaroo courts.

How this is nonsensical escapes me.

As for news publication of names, the reporter’s basic approach to any story, then and now, is WWWWHW: Who, what, where, when, how and why. I’m not sure that that is punitive; I’d place that at the feet of the prosecutors.

1. An arrest is an act of the government, and everything the government does is a matter of public record.

2. Releasing the names of arrestees protects against a tyrannical government arresting people in secret.

Of course, both are utter and complete nonsense. By the standard of 1, individual tax returns would be a matter of public record as well, which if course isn’t the case. And an actual tyrannical government would simply withhold information on secret arrests while publicly releasing details on people it wants publicly humiliated. Oh, wait….