dayumm said^There's the first one.
I used Larry Craig to make that point. Roman Ragazzi's death is a truly awful thing that happened. My problem is that his politics or sexual identity should have nothing to do with weather the Page Six crew is punished or not. Using the law or criminal penalty against your political enemies is down right fascist. That is what happens in places like China and Iran. We are all equal under the law in this country. Either they are held responsible for any suicide that is caused by their actions, or they are not held for any. There is not supposed to be some special calculation for political views in how law is applied.
I am in the "They (Teh Media) are not and should not be held responsible for any suicides" camp, just like you. As I stated, unless we see otherwise, it could be any number of OTHER things that made him think taking his life was a good idea, we may never have any idea.
I am also in the "They should have been held responsible for pointless gossip reporting five years ago, and if not, oh well, it's Murdoch anyway" camp, which I see you are not part of and am perfectly fine with, and I won't resort to pointless name-calling and generalizations of others an a futile attempt to prove otherwise. It's called "respectful" disagreement.
And it doesn't have to be "law" breaking to get a reprimand for your job, thankfully, in this country. You don't have to commit a misdemeanor or a felony at your job to do something wrong, and hopefully the folks responsible for editing the Post (in 2007) understood that. If the Post doesn't require employees to adhere to a professional code-of-ethics they could have reviewed (in 2007, again) that makes it clear to employees what is newsworthy and what is definitely not, then they probably ought to get started. Because unless what this gentleman was doing was a threat to national security or something, it was not newsworthy, and publishing the story was not professional.
Also: Belated condolences, Fit.