I have often been of the belief that people should be held accountable for the things they DO, and not things they DO NOT DO...

for example, I never believed people should be in trouble for not calling for help when they see a crime. I believe, MORALLY, they should. But I dont believe that INACTION should be made into a crime, unless one is being PAID to act, then that is different, or if they go on to take action that causes harm or death.

I also do not believe it is cool to judge people on what they DO NOT say. What they say, or how they say it is fair game. But inaction of speech, to me, is also not something I judge.


I see a trend in news lately that people are being called out because they 'didnt say' this or that, or they didnt 'support' publicly, or 'condemn' publicly some person, idea, or thing.


I wonder what scale is used to determine which of the millions of issues and things happening in the world someone MUST say something about publicly?

This most recent MASS ACCUSATION against Weinstein, is not only sad (that it might have happened is sad, that people may just be jumping on a band wagon to claim it happened to them is sad as well)

but then it is being elevated into all these stories about who has or has not 'said' something (publicly) about it

does this tendency to even judge the INACTIONS of people worry anyone else?

Since I no longer have respect for the NEWS this response is not about any political or media driven issue you might be looking to discuss.
I'll respond to the nature of accusation and the do/don't issue of responsibility.


There are certain aspects of accountability that changes the impact of DO/DON'T issues.
I think the most critical is the personal affiliations with whom you are considering.
Other considerations relate to the position/influence of the person you are considering.

A mother that does not feed her children is an example of someone being held accountable for something they do not do.
A father that is not there for their children, again, accountable for something they do not do.

Silence can be considered a lie by omission. It mainly depends on the circumstances. The water was contaminated but nobody said anything and many people got sick.

In a job, if an employee does not do the job as they were hired to do, they are held accountable.
Technically, any politician that does not represent the will of the people is guilty of not doing what they were elected to do.
A fireman that does not respond to a house fire is guilty of not doing what they were hired to do.


I'll bet there are many people in these forums and on this site that understand the implications of judging someone based on what they do not say.
"She was having sex with [insert person here] but never told me" or "He was gambling all our money away but never said anything till it was too late".

Inaction/Omissions affect us greater at the personal level than the society level.

News in the media is manipulative. They make more money off you if they keep you interested and people have become pessimistic and negative so the news twists things to appeal to that negativity. It causes them to make more money.

It uses opinion and testimonials to convince you to get interested. They roll out the "authoritative view" as if what that person says makes what happened simple to understand (justify). News agencies are not going to show opinions that do not agree with their ambition. It would be like shooting themselves in the foot. If there is an opposite opinion they will diminish its impact on their plan with unfavorable information or attitudes.

The NEWS does not want you to say "Wait a minute". They want you to sit there and agree with everything they tell you. It keeps you coming back for more. That makes them more money and gives them more power.


This demonstrates that "something isn't right" which is the beginning of waking from the sheeple state. I remember saying "wait a minute" and starting to wake up. The clearer I became, the more I saw what they do. When I stopped giving it power over me, my life improved and it got easier to cope with things.
I still get news information but I ignore the manipulation (opinion) and concentrate only on the facts. Plus I find I am not as addicted to the news anymore.

I agree that responsibility can be both complex and subjective to what the responsibilities of a relationship involve

the employers/employees responsibility to adhere to their contractual terms

or

the parents responsibility to supply their childrens needs and guidance

these, in context, seem much more straightforward examples of people meeting responsibilities, and we rightfully 'judge' people for falling short of their responsibilities.


My concern is that it appears that a person merely being in the public light causes many to feel that person's responsibility is to vocally, publically comment on everything in the news, whether it be to support it or condemn it.

so those in the public eye get it from both ends, critiques on what they do or say , AS WELL AS critiques about what they 'should' have done or said but didnt

I believe even those in the public eye have contracts of what their job responsibilities are, and I do not think any contract requires they comment on every newsworthy issue or item.

Its troubling to me that so much of the public seems to feel otherwise.

I think there are several separate parts that you are including in a single concern here.

I am VERY upset whenever someone, especially someone in a position of great power, declares that what people think or believe or in this case, fail to condemn, should become an actionable offence.

In the situation with Weinstein, there is a conundrum. A failure to speak out against his behaviors, is arguably what allowed them to go on for so long, and allowing them to thus continue without opposition, his actions were effectively CONDONED AND SUPPORTED. If one person is allowed to do so much and so many horrible things, others will inevitably decide to do them as well, and the bad actions spread.

It's the same in the case of failing to report other crimes as well. Not EVERY illegal act can be reported, because not every local legal system can be trusted to deal with crimes as they ought to be; and not every misbehavior is best addressed by criminalizing it, and the person who commits it.

However, it is again true, that when crimes go repeatedly unreported, the people who know they are going on, do become actively complicit in them, by their silence. The most egregious crimes associated with racism and other prejudices, have all been made vastly worse than they otherwise might have been, because so many people decided that they could remain silent, and avoid stain to their souls, and the ultimate desiccation of their society, at the same time.

What most disturbs ME about the recent explosion of such "dueling condemnation/praise" battles, is less that they are going on, than that the fact that they ARE going on, is allowing everyone to refuse to directly address ANY of the very real problems that the self-righteous posturings are nominally about.

Take Puerto Rico as a recent example. As all the tiffs are being fought over whether Trump struck the right tone or not, and whether Trumps critics should or should not thus attack the President, Puerto Rico itself, is being ignored almost entirely.

Similarly, all the fussing over how Trump failed to condemn a terrorist attack by a White Supremacist in Charlottesville, is blanking out the fact that no one is addressing the increasing threats of violence from those White Supremacists.

Yes, I am concerned, very concerned, that we seem to be increasingly held back or even actively damaged by leaders who want to go after people who TALK about problems, while pretending that the only real problems ARE the talk.

But I'm not sure that drawing the line at entirely letting the silent ones off the hook, is a solution.

That is logical and understandable.

Extremes are rarely the answer, but striking a logical balance is a goal.



when it comes to violent crime, there is a natural and understandable fear that the outcome will be more harmful to self than it will be helpful to others. When it comes to political issues, there is a natural and understandable fear that the outcome of speaking out will be more harmful to self than helpful to other, and there is also possibly just a consideration to not speak about what is only reported and not actually proven. Many a persons life has been ruined by public voices 'speaking out' about things they ended up not having done at all.

People have many reasons to remain silent, just as they have many different things going on in their lives to prioritize the way they feel a need to.

My belief is that if you're going to speak up, know what it is you are speaking up about. But when you don't know, there is no crime in remaining silent.

If a person doesn't speak out about a crime they've witnessed, they become complicit in the crime itself, murder, sexual assault, shoplifting, child abuse etc.

Your OP doesn't jive with civilised society, forget about MORALLY speaking... It SHOULD be a crime to withhold information that we know is truth in order to guard against the walls of secrecy and abuse. A la Police brotherhood

It also should be a severe crime to spread false information... misinformation has no place in a just society.

Cosby, Weinstein, Jimmy Seville and toss in the Affleck Bros too... a corrupt segment of our entertainment world, perpetuated by decades of silence by those who knew. INCLUDING THEIR SPOUSES!

I understand the concept of 'complicity' within the law, I just do not agree with it for reasons mentioned above. Unless they are being paid and contracted to do so, it should never be LAW for people to endanger their own lives via potential retaliation.

I am also not sure what other people may or may not KNOW about what someone else has done anymore than I am that an accusation is proof of an event or the actual degree to which the event is illegal/offensive/wrong

What I most regret in these times, is that we lack ANY wise leadership in ANY major sector of American life. And without such, we end up with this idiotic dance of competing righteous posturings.

Personally, I feel almost as grossed out by the obviously made up platitudes and posturings against bad things, as I do about the fact that some people who I would LIKE to have heard speak out, failed to do so.

The expected "It's a tragic event and our hearts go out to the victims" speeches, always leave me feeling much the same as I did when I was told to thank aunt Martha for the nice bunny suit, when I was six. Although someone like Trump, seems to be eager to turn their own such speeches into meaninglessness or even lies, as soon as they finish saying them, I often find that MOST of the time, the people who say such things, fail to follow through with any direct support after they do anyway.

So trying to turn all failures to make functionless condemnation or appreciation speeches into meaningful inactions, is adding absurdity to nonsense, in my book.

People in power have always gotten with doing chit "normal" folks would never even think of attempting. The "casting-couch" has a long history in movie making.

I'm not understanding your point where someone needs to get paid or contracted to say what they know. Surely you're not suggesting people should make a few bucks to spill the ugly truths?

Endanger their lives to potentially save others? I'd say that's the basic foundation of a just society, to protect your brothers & sisters first.

People burying their heads in the sand will NEVER help.
Whole families get slaughtered in other countries villages and no one knows nothing? Meh!

I am only suggesting that not 'speaking up' should not be illegal or condemned UNLESS it is part of something one has SIGNED A CONTRACT to do, in which case it would be, in matter of law, BREACH OF CONTRACT.

I do not advocate burying our heads, I just do not advocate condemning reasonable concerns about the consequence of 'speaking up' either.

Not speaking up should be a Federal crime in important matters and include long long prison sentences IMHO...

Ya you saved yourself alright but now you get to rot in Prison.

I believe that would be disrespectful to what 'america stands for', particularly our rights pertaining to the Constitutional freedom of speech.


WHich means free to speak OR NOT speak.

For good or ill British Commonwealth has a specific law related to inaction called Duty of Care, although it can only be realistically enforced under extreme circumstances. It states that anyone whom witnesses an act or environment which constitutes a foreseeable danger to any persons is compelled to act or be found in breach of an indictable offence (our version of felony, summary offence is a misdemeanor).

It is used, for example to compel rendering aid if you witness a motor accident with serious injuries or similar event, although rendering aid could be as simple as contacting authorities as opposed to acting as a first aider when you don't know what you're doing.

It is a very generalized law which can only be loosely interpreted by a magistrate, it is very rarely enforced unless a very clear case of breach in duty of care is involved, such as taunting a drowning person at a public pool, whom then drowns and dies. You'll probably get charged with an indictable offence for taunting them instead of helping them but since you didn't actually contribute to their circumstance it is breach in duty of care that you'll be charged with and possibly receive similar sentencing as a low level murder charge like 3rd degree or manslaughter.

It's really just situations like that in which authorities pull out this law. But it is so generalized that it can be brought out fairly universally for any situation that an indictable degree of callous inaction, resulting in serious injuries or deaths can be argued with a magistrate.

On the positive side, breach in duty of care trumps privacy contracts in business law, since they're not valid involving any criminal activity and if company practise or policy presents any foreseeable danger to any persons it is a criminal activity without needing evidence of anything other than foreseeable risk. Employees personal ethic would normally be compromised where they could not speak up versus endangerment to the public by the company unless a crime of actually harming someone had occured, thus forced by an employee privacy agreement not to speak up. But with breach in duty of care there doesn't need to be actual harm for you to legally break the privacy agreement and spill the beans on the company policies to the entire world, there only has to be a foreseeable risk as ruled by a magistrate to break the contract.

Thank you for sharing some facts in the conversation Jason, and welcome to Mingle.