commentary on coverage of stalker case

[02roadking]

Sooo, your posting this on a public forum...why? 

[BridgeTroll]

Seems kinda... I dont know... gossipy.  But thats just me... 

[ben says]

Oy...public knowledge or not (via a court filing), not sure this is worth posting...

[02roadking]

"Good enough"

Sure. Though I have not been privy to these sorted shenanagens, except what has posted in the stalking thread, i knew not of the individuals involved. I'm abit taken aback, thats all.

[BridgeTroll]

theres more.

We will see what happens with the trial today.

And if you think it sounds 'gossipy' its because youve never been the victim in this kind of crime.

True... I cannot say what it is like to be a victim of stalking.  I was also completely unaware that such victims wanted the details out in public display.  Who knew?

[acme54321]

theres more.

We will see what happens with the trial today.

And if you think it sounds 'gossipy' its because youve never been the victim in this kind of crime.

True... I cannot say what it is like to be a victim of stalking.  I was also completely unaware that such victims wanted the details out in public display.  Who knew?

Seriously,  and extramarital affair with a married guy turned stalker?  I don't think I would want my neighbors openly discussing the matter on the internet.  That's just me though

[tufsu1]

Sooo, your posting this on a public forum...why? 

thank you

[ben says]

Boundaries

[edjax]

Seems like Metro Jax just gets further and further from its roots.  Yes this happened in Jacksonville so I guess that will be the reasoning. Seems more like I will get back at you thread than anything. 

[RiversideLoki]

Yeah, this does seem a little gossipy. While I think stalking is wrong and I hope that this is resolved in a civilized manner, this whole thread smacks of a Jerry Springer manufactured drama-fest. I would like to think this site is better than this.

[edjax]

Well my comment at getting back at someone was not directed toward the people in this case.

[RiversideLoki]

I think my main point is that there's absolutely no journalistic purpose in airing of the private business of two people. This is a court matter for them and their lawyers to sort out, if you aren't sitting there in the court room live blogging this stuff, and instead you're just getting the side of one of the lawyers (Chris), then that should be considered a major breech of trust between the affected party and her lawyer. Not to mention being careful what you say about the other guy (whoever the hell he is) and not working yourself into a libel case.

I'm calling bullshit on this whole thing. And to just turn MJ into a neighborhood gossip rag is absolute trash. You may as well be writing angry articles about Mrs. Johnson down the block for leaving a dead car in the front yard.

It's not about "enabling a stalker" as you said. It's about having some sort of journalistic integrity and recognizing a real story from gossip you heard from your friend, the lawyer.

[BridgeTroll]

Well like I said, there are more developments, and to be honest, it has the potential of becoming a national story.

The full story is pretty extraordinary, or at least what is being discussed in the courtroom.

Stalking is a pretty terrible crime, I think.  Having been the victim of two stalkers over the course of my lifetime, I can attest that personally.

I certainly always hated the enablers of the stalkers themselves.  And its enabling to claim that exposing a stalker (especially if the facts alleged in this case are born out) is 'getting back at' or some other kind of nonsense.

The fact is that, like blackmail, stalking is made possible because of enablement, secrecy, and the unwillingness to talk about the crime, both on the part of the victim and within the social group of the perpetrator.

Some cases, as discussed in the stalking thread, become so serious that they are life ruining and physically endangering, and those are the allegations of this particular case.

The fact that the people are public figures and politically connected (all of the participants) really kind of worsens the position of the victim, as the stalking is aimed at shame, degradation and public loss of reputation.

Whatever the affiliations and the connections, two years of attempting to solve it with a massive support group have failed to do so and the situation appears to have escalated to the point of litigation.

I don't think that its fair to say that the victim is trying to 'get back at' anyone, considering that it took her two years of constant and escalating activity in order to convince her that filing an action was the only alternative.

Do you?

These are all valid points Stephen... and perhaps the story should be told.  Is it possible / reasonable to leave the names out.  Does N_______ approve of you using her name and personal circumstances in public?  Does the accused have any right to privacy at all?

I guess when I first read the account... I thought the story could have been told without the names.

[edjax]

Well my comment at getting back at someone was not directed toward the people in this case.

What on earth are you talking about then?

It was directed at you.  You had noted in response to Bill Hoff in the Claude Nolan building thread something about his failure to go on record in the Springfield stalker issue.  Seemed like you were attempting to push buttons again. Shortly after that comment you started this thread. Perhaps just a coincidence in timing. Or not.

[JaxUnicorn]

Stephen, you are GAY?  Oh my!