Public Scrutiny vs Entitlement to Privacy of involved Parties

[Race Radio]

Ok, let me make sure I have this correct. It is OK to write a book on "Raising a Champion"

And make $10-20,000 per speech talking about what a great guy your son is.
http://www.bigspeak.com/linda-armstrong-kelly.html

But we are not allowed to talk about her?

Never question the myth

 

[Race Radio]

There have indeed been mentions of his children recently, which have been deleted as quickly as possible.

Susan

Not by me.

 

[rhubroma]

Ok, let me make sure I have this correct. It is OK to write a book on "Raising a Champion"

And make $10-20,000 per speech talking about what a great guy your son is.
http://www.bigspeak.com/linda-armstrong-kelly.html

But we are not allowed to talk about her?

Never question the myth

Heart wrenching stuff. And what quality!

 

[Susan Westemeyer]

Not by me.

No, not you. Others. This was a general comment, not directed at you.

Susan

 

[Dr. Maserati]

There have indeed been mentions of his children recently, which have been deleted as quickly as possible.

Susan

I may have missed it but there didn't appear to be any mention of his kids in the posts made since the Stapleton comments were posted - which is what that poster was alluding to.

Overall, I would agree - it is correct that posts that mention someone kids that have no relevance to the discussion be removed.

 

[krebs303]

I've stepped over the bounds of decency again, which nobody can stand more than myself. Krebs303 will be throwing a fit.

either somebody hacked into rhubroma's account or I took a blue pill and yellow pill together again

 

[Francois the Postman]

So, we have 2 rules of thumbs that we try to apply, even if it isn't always easy, or black and white.

If adults haven't both stepped into the public light about their going-ons, it is none of your business. If people have been open about it in public (think public announcement, etc), it probably can be.

Ok, let me make sure I have this correct. It is OK to write a book on "Raising a Champion"

And make $10-20,000 per speech talking about what a great guy your son is.

But we are not allowed to talk about her?

Never question the myth

Always question the myth.

Normally mums are off-limit. This is the exception, as flagged up when I gave the rules-of-thumb.

Because she stepped into the public arena herself, and is trading on the image of her son, anything windfall that ma derived as a result, anything that mum has written about, or contributed to, an image of Lance, is fair game for closer scrutiny.

 

[elizab]

Susan maybe you can help here. There is a saying in Deutsch "We all want to know the message but then we want to stone the messanger for telling us". Can you give that direct quote, please? It was told to me by a German journalist.
Race Radio posts a picture then is rebuked for answering to one of the posters demanding it? Go here then: http://nyvelocity.com/content/toto/2009/toto-turns-129
When parents of children use their children in order to tout an image by posting photos of them on the internet, parading them around for the public to take picures, write about them extensively on the internet then it is only fair that these same parents' choices in "using" their children be debated. I'm not saying to talk about the children but rather the parents' choice in using them.
Everyone wants to protect the kids? Right? Bull. There are children who have been hurt by this and that is completely ignored by those who use the same "spare the kids". My kids have paid a price for my anti-doping stance and refusal to lie under oath for lance. Where's the concern for them?

 

[Francois the Postman]

As fas as the protection of privacy goes, if you choose to marry the president then what else do you expect?

That editors know where the line is between in-the-public-interest and no-one's-business. And between national-interest and mostly-to-satisfy-voyeurism.

Just because some don't know where the line is, that doesn't mean we shouldn't have any here.

 

[thirteen]

I may have missed it but there didn't appear to be any mention of his kids in the posts made since the Stapleton comments were posted - which is what that poster was alluding to.

Overall, I would agree - it is correct that posts that mention someone kids that have no relevance to the discussion be removed.

there's the rub...

someone will always think it is relevant to the discussion (the call of whether it is or not will be in the eye of the beholder).

therefore, i think it is proper that they not be mentioned at all.

have a heart you guys! and this is not directed at Dr M but at everybody... the internet is accessible to all as are archives...

 

[thirteen]

Everyone wants to protect the kids? Right? Bull. There are children who have been hurt by this and that is completely ignored by those who use the same "spare the kids". My kids have paid a price for my anti-doping stance and refusal to lie under oath for lance. Where's the concern for them?

have they been mentioned here?

 

[Francois the Postman]

When parents of children use their children in order to tout an image by posting photos of them on the internet, parading them around for the public to take picures, write about them extensively on the internet then it is only fair that these same parents' choices in "using" their children be debated. I'm not saying to talk about the children but rather the parents' choice in using them.

That is the distinction that we also draw. If anyone has the perfect wording for the general principle, please pass them on. I can't think of any wording that captures it perfectly, but once presented with examples, it is usually quite easy to see which part of the line it falls on.

Speculation/suggesting that the kids will need therapy (an example existed somewhere in the depths of Forum posts) or must be mentally affected by all this (now, or in the future): not ok. It is speculation about the mental state of people we don't want/need to speculate about.

Pointing out the parents are wrong for parading them when they do: totally ok. And can't be said enough, if you'd ask me. Posting the picture alongside it, or even giving their names: not ok. Immaterial to the general point, you can make the argument without elaborating.

In the end it will be where the weight of the argument falls, and the exact wording. The moment people want to make an argument over the back of minors, it is not ok. It is usually details for effect that drags things over a line.

 

[Hugh Januss]

Susan maybe you can help here. There is a saying in Deutsch "We all want to know the message but then we want to stone the messanger for telling us". Can you give that direct quote, please? It was told to me by a German journalist.
Race Radio posts a picture then is rebuked for answering to one of the posters demanding it? Go here then: http://nyvelocity.com/content/toto/2009/toto-turns-129
When parents of children use their children in order to tout an image by posting photos of them on the internet, parading them around for the public to take picures, write about them extensively on the internet then it is only fair that these same parents' choices in "using" their children be debated. I'm not saying to talk about the children but rather the parents' choice in using them.
Everyone wants to protect the kids? Right? Bull. There are children who have been hurt by this and that is completely ignored by those who use the same "spare the kids". My kids have paid a price for my anti-doping stance and refusal to lie under oath for lance. Where's the concern for them?

Exactly. If you don't want your family in the public domain don't keep pushing them into the public domain. ie. don't get them their own twitter account when they are 6 months old.

 

[elizab]

have they been mentioned here?

What's your point?
My point is that any child should not be used by any parent. Some parents obviously use their children. Why can't that be called out? In the name of "protect the kids" should the disgusting promotion of them by some parents be ignored?
Children have been hurt by all of this. That's a no-brainer. But it seems that topic is off-limits. That's wrong as well.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

there's the rub...

someone will always think it is relevant to the discussion (the call of whether it is or not will be in the eye of the beholder).

therefore, i think it is proper that they not be mentioned at all.

have a heart you guys! and this is not directed at Dr M but at everybody... the internet is accessible to all as are archives...

Again - I broadly agree.

There may have been mention in the deleted posts but i have not seen a mention of any of the kids names by people here - the discussion is about 'layering in' family man as part of the 'branding'.

But of course this should work both ways.
Armstrong has often used his kids (& family) for promotion. Everything from setting up twitter accounts to posting videos dressed in MJ attire.

 

[elizab]

Exactly. If you don't want your family in the public domain don't keep pushing them into the public domain. ie. don't get them their own twitter account when they are 6 months old.

Bingo. Or talking about how your young child has a Bible study group.
It's so easy to talk about being a Christian and tout that for all. It's so very difficult to follow Christianity.

 

[Hugh Januss]

Bingo. Or talking about how your young child has a Bible study group.
It's so easy to talk about being a Christian and tout that for all. It's so very difficult to follow Christianity.

The world these days has no shortage of role models for that sort of behavior.

 

[thirteen]

What's your point?
My point is that any child should not be used by any parent. Some parents obviously use their children. Why can't that be called out? In the name of "protect the kids" should the disgusting promotion of them by some parents be ignored?
Children have been hurt by all of this. That's a no-brainer. But it seems that topic is off-limits. That's wrong as well.

don't shout at me. i was asking a simple question if they had been mentioned in terms Francois alluded to.

Speculation/suggesting that the kids will need therapy (an example existed somewhere in the depths of Forum posts) or must be mentally affected by all this (now, or in the future): not ok. It is speculation about the mental state of people we don't want/need to speculate about.

do you not agree that this crosses the line?

as for your other point, regarding them being used for promotion, that is fair game:

Pointing out the parents are wrong for parading them when they do: totally ok. And can't be said enough, if you'd ask me. Posting the picture alongside it, or even giving their names: not ok. Immaterial to the general point, you can make the argument without elaborating.

happy now?

 

[Francois the Postman]

No it is not off-limits, you can have a general discussion about it.

You have just dragged in your own kids to make an argument about a general point.

People can now do 2 things: take your word for it and leave it at that. Or scrutinize it to see if you are right, or wrong, or to prove you are wrong. Since you bring them up, even if you avoided their names, people are now at a disadvantage for making a counter-point, unless they go deeper.

You probably wouldn't welcome photos of your kids here that show them utterly happy and not apparently affected to the point that they suffer in any significant way. We are all affected by something, not? You wouldn't like to see several posts of psychobabble that state they are actually stronger because of it. Etc etc. Or maybe you would welcome that discussion.

It doesn't matter. And that is the point. The kids are people in their own right, and no-one asked them if they welcome speculation about that here on the forum, or of they want to be paraded about in public. And even if you asked them, they are minors, and legally deemed to be unable to make their minds up about stuff like this. They might or might not regret it in the future.

It isn't about you or Lance. The policy is in place for the kids.

It is perfectly possible to discuss the general principle without dragging anyone's kids. To be honest, I can't see that discussion being long.

 

[elizab]

don't shout at me. i was asking a simple question if they had been mentioned in terms Francois alluded to.


do you not agree that this crosses the line?

as for your other point, regarding them being used for promotion, that is fair game:

happy now?

Where do you get the "stop shouting at me"? I merely asked you what your point is.
I agree with the guidelines and terms. Keep the kids out of it - they are unwilling participants. The parents using their children are a completely different issue.
And to answer your question, no, my kids haven't been mentioned that I know of. I follow the forum in spurts as you can tell by my sporadic posts. But since I post no photos of them online nor do I really talk about them publicly there'd be no need to bring them up.
Note that I say I. It's unavoidable to prevent photos other people take whether it be at school events, parties, sporting events from hitting the internet.
I'm editing this because I did put my kids on camera when I was pushing them on swings for Nightline and cutting up vegetables and another time for the documentary CBC did. I guess this makes me a parent who users their children to promote an image because they appeared on tv for a few seconds? Kind of like Deagol being a bowler? I haven't done it since and don't plan on having them on tv in the future either. Other tv I've done since then, national and international did NOT have the children in it. I don't use my kids for the world to see what a great parent I am. It's okay that I'm perceived to be the fat, homily, bitter, jealous and hateful woman lance says I am. I don't need that validation nor do I need to promote an image.

 

[krebs303]

That is the distinction that we also draw. If anyone has the perfect wording for the general principle, please pass them on. I can't think of any wording that captures it perfectly, but once presented with examples, it is usually quite easy to see which part of the line it falls on.

The most frequently quoted Supreme Court opinion on obscenity:
MR. JUSTICE STEWARTT:

“Pornography may be hard to define but I know it when I see it.”

 

[Francois the Postman]

do you not agree that this crosses the line?

I actually was typing about that point whilst you were posting.

I think it has hit the line, as it is impossible to discuss the point she wanted to make without saying something. She didn't give names, she didn't gave details. But she did, indeed, drag in her own kids in the same post that condemned someone else for doing something similar (albeit to a different scale).

However, what it also did: it did put everyone else at a disadvantage: we only have her word for it, and we can't go deeper. I have no reason to doubt or question it, but at the same time I can't see why other people should just take elizab at her word (in priciple) on this, now she had made them part of a public argument.

Hence why I said it is nigh impossible to give wording what is ok, and what isn't. Intent and execution matters, I guess.

If folk can take the example as a discussion point starter for the general principle, rather than a specific example to be picked apart and elaborated upon, I can live with it. It certainly isn't an invitation to prove elizab wrong over the back of her children's entitlement to privacy. Nor is it an invitation to elizab to say anything more about this, or her kids.

We can all move on to the principle, and probably take it as a given that (at least) sometimes kids are affected when they become part of the theatre play of their old folks or those they are involved with (public and/or privately), with one parent giving a personal assurance she has first-hand experience of it as a bonus, without digging for details.

 

[Hugh Januss]

Where do you get the "stop shouting at me"? I merely asked you what your point is.
I agree with the guidelines and terms. Keep the kids out of it - they are unwilling participants. The parents using their children are a completely different issue.
And to answer your question, no, my kids haven't been mentioned that I know of. I follow the forum in spurts as you can tell by my sporadic posts. But since I post no photos of them online nor do I really talk about them publicly there'd be no need to bring them up.
Note that I say I. It's unavoidable to prevent photos other people take whether it be at school events, parties, sporting events from hitting the internet.

Which effectively reduces the discussion to:
So and so did this.
No he didn't.
Yes he did.

 

[Susan Westemeyer]

Susan maybe you can help here. There is a saying in Deutsch "We all want to know the message but then we want to stone the messanger for telling us". Can you give that direct quote, please? It was told to me by a German journalist.

Der Überbringer der schlechte Botschaft wird bestraft.

Meaning "to kill (or punish) the messenger who brings bad news," traced back to Greek historian Pausanias, from about 490 BC.

Susan

 

[elizab]

No it is not off-limits, you can have a general discussion about it.

You have just dragged in your own kids to make an argument about a general point.

People can now do 2 things: take your word for it and leave it at that. Or scrutinize it to see if you are right, or wrong, or to prove you are wrong. Since you bring them up, even if you avoided their names, people are now at a disadvantage for making a counter-point, unless they go deeper.

You probably wouldn't welcome photos of your kids here that show them utterly happy and not apparently affected to the point that they suffer in any significant way. We are all affected by something, not? You wouldn't like to see several posts of psychobabble that state they are actually stronger because of it. Etc etc. Or maybe you would welcome that discussion.

It doesn't matter. And that is the point. The kids are people in their own right, and no-one asked them if they welcome speculation about that here on the forum, or of they want to be paraded about in public. And even if you asked them, they are minors, and legally deemed to be unable to make their minds up about stuff like this. They might or might not regret it in the future.

It isn't about you or Lance. The policy is in place for the kids.

It is perfectly possible to discuss the general principle without dragging anyone's kids. To be honest, I can't see that discussion being long.

Dragging my kids into this because I admitted they've paid a price for all of this? Is not every family involved affected by it one way or another? That's just ludicrous to suggest or infer I've dragged them into this because I've said they've paid a price. EVERY CHILD HAS on either side of the fence. That's just common sense.
viele danke Susan.