More Evidence: Obfuscation Rules the World

By: Dorothy M. Neddermeyer, PhD
Submitted: 2007-01-17 16:25:24
Print this article | Tell a friend | For publisher |

Rating:

 

In writing about Instant Message Etiquette, Matthew Baek, Forbes.com, writes, “When it comes to instant messaging in the workplace, credit former Florida Congressman Mark Foley with being the poster boy for bad judgment.”

“The recent hoopla surrounding Foley's sexually explicit text communications with teenage congressional pages led to his abrupt resignation. The continuing fallout also threatens to cost his Republican Party the House and Senate majorities following the upcoming mid-term elections.

Foley's case may be an extreme one, but it's hardly the first misuse of instant messaging since the technology hit the workplace in recent years. "The most important thing, whether it's e-mail or instant messaging, is that the technology gives you a chance to communicate before you think," says Rita Kirk, professor of communications at Southern Methodist University….”

Baek implies that Foley’s only bad judgment was in using Instant Messages as the form of communication with under-age pages.

Foley soliciting under-age boys for sexual activity is the bad judgment Foley made whether he conducted it via Instant Message, e-mail or face-to-face. Furthermore, Baek states “The recent hoopla surrounding Foley’s sexually explicit text communications....—implies Foley did nothing wrong except to use the wrong form of communication—i.e. Instant Message.

Baek’s blatant obfuscation of the facts regarding Foley’s admitted solicitation of under-age boys is reckless, reprehensible, irresponsible and inexcusable.

Society is in deep denial about:

• a sex offender’s ruse, their cunning distortion of the truth and their insidious ability to con people into believing they are innocent and/or the beleaguered party. i.e. Foley’s only mistake was using instant message.

• what constitutes sexual child abuse. The definition of sexual child abuse is decided on the merits of each case rather than a ’standard definition.’ No other criminal act against another person is decided on a case by case basis. For example: If a person points a loaded gun at another person’s head and says, "If you move, I will shoot you." That is considered a threat of attempted murder. If a person says, "I will kill you." That is considered a threat of attempted murder. In the case of sexual child abuse, not only can a person sexually abuse a child and be acquitted of any wrong doing, the definition is changed based on the person accused, and on a ‘he said, he said or he said, she said basis.

Obfuscating articles from a respected publication as Forbes.com only serves to continue the already insidious denial. All sexual abuse survivors deserve an apology from Mr. Baek.

Unless, and until everyone accepts sexual abuse for what it is and sexual child abuse is adjudicated on the merits of the standard child sexual abuse definition, sex offenders will abuse children under society’s nose without fear of being arrested or found guilty.

Article source: Expert Articles