I think the closer framing is something like: if you’re the 100,000th person to deliberately run your car over a person’s body, are you liable for vehicular manslaughter?
Manslaughter? Probably not—you did not contribute to that person’s death. You are, however, guilty of:
Desecration of the corpse.
Obstructing the work of the sanitation workers (it’s too late for paramedics) that can’t remove the body from the road because of the endless stream of cars running over it.
You probably didn’t count 100k vehicles running over that body. A bystander who stayed there for a couple of days could have, but since you are one of the drivers you probably only witness a few cars running over that person—so as far as you know there is a slim chance they are still alive.
I may be taking the allegory too far here, but I feel these offenses can map quite well. Starting from the last—being able to know that all the damage is done. In Sipple’s case, this is history so it’s easy to know that all the damage was already done. He can’t be outed again. His family will not be harassed again by their community, and will not estrange him again. His life will not be ruined again, and he will not die again.
Up next—interfering with the efforts to make things better. Does this really happen here? I don’t think so. On the contrary—talking about this, establishing that this is wrong, can help prevent this from happening to other people. And it’s better to talk about cases from the past, where all the damage is already done, than about current cases that still have damage potential.
This leaves us with the final issue—respecting the dead. Which is probably the main issue, so I could have just skipped the other two points, but I took the trouble of writing them so I might as well impose on you the trouble of reading them. Are we really disrespecting Oliver Sipple by talking about him?
Sipple did not want to be outed because he did not want his family to know and he did not want his employer to know. They all know, but even after they were originally told about this, Sipple probably did want want them to be constantly reminded and harassed about this. But… are discussions about this bringing reporters to his surviving family members? I doubt it. This issue is no longer about his sexual orientation, it’s about the journalism ethics now, and there is no point in interviewing his parents and asking them what they think about their son being gay.
Given all that—I don’t think talking about this case should be considered as a violation of Sipple’s wish to not be outed.
I think the closer framing is something like: if you’re the 100,000th person to deliberately run your car over a person’s body, are you liable for vehicular manslaughter?
Manslaughter? Probably not—you did not contribute to that person’s death. You are, however, guilty of:
Desecration of the corpse.
Obstructing the work of the sanitation workers (it’s too late for paramedics) that can’t remove the body from the road because of the endless stream of cars running over it.
You probably didn’t count 100k vehicles running over that body. A bystander who stayed there for a couple of days could have, but since you are one of the drivers you probably only witness a few cars running over that person—so as far as you know there is a slim chance they are still alive.
I may be taking the allegory too far here, but I feel these offenses can map quite well. Starting from the last—being able to know that all the damage is done. In Sipple’s case, this is history so it’s easy to know that all the damage was already done. He can’t be outed again. His family will not be harassed again by their community, and will not estrange him again. His life will not be ruined again, and he will not die again.
Up next—interfering with the efforts to make things better. Does this really happen here? I don’t think so. On the contrary—talking about this, establishing that this is wrong, can help prevent this from happening to other people. And it’s better to talk about cases from the past, where all the damage is already done, than about current cases that still have damage potential.
This leaves us with the final issue—respecting the dead. Which is probably the main issue, so I could have just skipped the other two points, but I took the trouble of writing them so I might as well impose on you the trouble of reading them. Are we really disrespecting Oliver Sipple by talking about him?
Sipple did not want to be outed because he did not want his family to know and he did not want his employer to know. They all know, but even after they were originally told about this, Sipple probably did want want them to be constantly reminded and harassed about this. But… are discussions about this bringing reporters to his surviving family members? I doubt it. This issue is no longer about his sexual orientation, it’s about the journalism ethics now, and there is no point in interviewing his parents and asking them what they think about their son being gay.
Given all that—I don’t think talking about this case should be considered as a violation of Sipple’s wish to not be outed.