Author: Shawn K. Quinn

Ethics tests and public relations professionals

Stumbled across this little gem today, and the cynic in me got a good chuckle or three out of it, so I had to share.

Bulldog Reporter’s Daily Dog reports that according to a study conducted by Penn State led by Renita Coleman, professionals in public relations (PR) do not deserve their often questionable reputation and actually score higher on ethics test than those in certain other professions.

As much as I’d like to believe this, the research is based on performance on a test which poses a set of situations that require the use of ethical judgment. The test shows that PR people did comparatively well on a test. But we all know the final exam is not given in a sterile classroom and proctored by a teaching assistant. No, the final exam is given in real life. Not only in the PR professional’s interactions with clients, but also in interactions with others outside of working hours.

Sometimes the most accurate exams, especially regarding ethics, are pop quizzes. I’ve learned that one from personal experience. The story itself could even be considered a good “garden variety” example of PR spin, for PR people, by PR people. But I think it’s ultimately up to my readers to answer that for themselves.

One giant step over the line in Illinois

Pete Cashmore’s recent article for Mashable and an article in Salon report on Governor Pat Quinn signing into law a bill that prohibits registered sex offenders from using social media sites.

At first glance, to the masses, it looks like common sense legislation aimed at protecting us from the likes of child predators and serial rapists. The problem is, some offenses considered sex crimes that require registration are as piddling as public urination, a misdemeanor. That’s just one small example; many other offenses that fall far short of the stereotypical child predator or rapist one thinks of when they hear “sex offender” would also be barred from using Facebook, Twitter, et al. For life.

It disgusts me enough that Facebook feels it necessary to bar access to anyone who is a “convicted sex offender” when that term is not clearly defined elsewhere in Facebook’s Statement of Rights and Responsibilities (SRR). One must assume that this is any offense for which registration as a sex offender is required. I voted against the revised SRR for this reason, and I feel no particular shame for having done so.

If society as a whole does deem this kind of law necessary, I think the least we can do is restrict it to those who have exhibited actual sexual predatory conduct or are at high risk of doing so, not college kids who got caught peeing behind the frat house.

It’s also time to put an end to rubber-stamping conditions of probation for any remotely sex-related crime with prohibitions on any Internet use. That, in 2009, makes about as much sense as prohibiting someone from using a telephone.

In case anyone is wondering, no, I am absolutely, positively, not related to the governor of Illinois, despite sharing the same last name. To be honest, that makes his signature on this bill all the more embarrassing. Thus, the reason I’m debuting a new tag, “box-of-rocks-dumb,” for when “galactically-stupid” just plain doesn’t do justice.

Knocking down granny: unacceptable police brutality

How do scum like this get a badge and gun?

Stephen’s blog at geeks.pirillo.com and Infowars both report on an incident involving Virginia Dotson, an 84-year old Alzheimer’s patient. Warning: the video is very disturbing to anyone with any sense of decency.

I am grateful that the woman wasn’t injured. I hope the officer that used what I can only describe as egregiously excessive force are fired; hopefully, he/she (I can’t really tell gender from the video) will be spending the rest of his/her life in retail, fast food, and manual labor hell.

What’s unfortunately likely to happen: suspension with pay while investigation is pending, desk duty for a few months until the people forget about this, and back on the streets.

And we wonder why some people don’t trust cops.

Shark-infested financial waters

Okay, last UK-related story for a while, I promise. But it’s not like I’m ending this string with a whimper, or even a garden variety bang. No, don the earplugs, kids, because this story is more like a sonic boom.

The Daily Mail reports on a truly frightening case of predatory lending, more coloquially called loan sharking. The woman, Debra Wilson, paid £88,000 (approx. US$132,000) over seven years on what was originally a £500 (approx. US$750) loan.

The loan shark, Robert Reynolds, wound up with a 51-week jail sentence suspended for two years (probation), when the prosecution reduced the original blackmail charge to harassment.

For reasons I won’t go into at this time, I often side with the defendant or at least try to see the case a little bit from the point of view of the accused. From what I’ve read in the article, however, I am not really sure how I can do that this time.

Reynolds damn near got away with what he did, at least from the standpoint of his sentence, and that’s a shame. The only real consolation here is that at least his monetary gains from the crime may be forfeited, so at least the victims may get something back.

I may have finally dissuaded someone from moving to or staying in the UK. That wasn’t my original goal, of course, it just sort of happened that way. Such is life, I guess.

Police states: the new world order?

The Register reports on one of the more alarming attacks on civil liberties in the UK. Two people have been convicted for refusing to hand over encryption keys.

This highly controversial UK law went into effect in 2007 October.

Of a total of 15 notices served under this law, there were 11 cases of non-compliance, of which seven were charged, and two were convicted.

I still think that’s two too many. This law should not even be on the books. Of course, that is the UK, where they think nothing about putting up tons of CCTV cameras in public spaces as a security measure.

And my loyal readers, or even those just dropping in at random, may well be wondering “why does this crackpot even care about the UK when he obviously lives in the US?” My answer is simple: governments look to each other for ideas. The US and UK are rather closely allied today–the whole thing about dumping taxed tea into the harbor is well over two centuries old now–and the possibilities that certain US states will try to emulate the UK is horrifying.

So what is going on here in my home state of Texas? We had an attempt to pass what has been known as the “papers please” law, SB 1175, making it a crime to refuse to identify to a law enforcement official if detained. The existing laws already make it illegal to falsely identify, but do not proscribe refusing to identify at all. The Fifth Amendment implications should be obvious.

Thankfully, that attempt appears to have gone down in flames, at least for now. While I despise terrorism like any American who loves his country, it is our freedoms that make this country what it is. By passing the laws that erode what is left of our civil liberties, our Congresspeople, state legislators, and local-level representatives surrender what makes our country the great place it was. And they’re doing it while pretending to represent the best interests of those that elected them.

And I find that absolutely, positively, galactically disgusting.