LAW OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & NEW MEDIA BL252/BU9302

INFORMATION ETHICS SEMINAR CASESTUDIES

Social Media Create an Ethical Dilemma (Markulla Centre for Ethics)

The following is a fictionalized case reflecting some of the ethical dilemmas facing public officials.
Mike Monroe and Derek Wheeler were roommates and fraternity brothers at a small mid-western college. Both
were political science majors, so they saw a lot of each other, both in academic and social situations. Dereks wild
and outrageous pranks, excessive drinking, and one-night-stands earned him the reputation of playing fast and
loose in his personal life. He had been caught plagiarizing twice, but was only given a warning. Still, he was
personable and a good friend, so upon graduation the two vowed to stay in touch.
After their fifth college reunion, where Derek became so drunk he needed to be hospitalized, Mike decided to break
off communication. His only updates on his former roommate came through the fraternity alumni magazine, where
Derek submitted updates on his career. He had a masters degree in public administration, and had been working for
cities in several states. His job in each jurisdiction lasted only two or three years, but each new job sounded like a
promotion. Mike figured Derek had finally grown up and was happy to learn of his success.
Mike had also been successful. He moved to Utah, and worked as a field representative for a state legislator. He fell
in love with public service and was elected to the city council. He was now in his second term as mayor, and was
overseeing a new culture of ethics program in River Falls, stressing values in addition to the rules outlined in the
code of ethics.
It had been 10 years since they last connected, so Mike was surprised to get an invitation from Derek to be a friend
on two separate Facebook accounts. Mike agreed, and first went to a personal account featuring facts about Dereks
education, work history, and family. The second Facebook page, with privacy controls restricting access, was for a
group called Dereks Doghouse. The other friends on the site included some fraternity brothers, but also a
collection of men Derek had met or worked with over the years.
He founded the group, according to the site, to celebrate the good life: wine, women, and wild times. The wall
postings chronicled wild weekends in Las Vegas, gambling on sporting events, and exploits with women while on
business trips. The 20 or so members were candid, unedited, and occasionally profane in their comments, bragging
about their bad behavior. The stories were often accompanied by compromising photos.
Within days of the Facebook contact, Derek called Mike to ask for a job recommendation. He was submitting his
application for the assistant city manager position in River Falls and wanted Mike to put in a good word. Ive never
asked for a favor, Derek said, but this job is perfect for me and my family. I really hope you will be able to
influence the HR director and city manager to hire me.
Discussion questions:
How should Mike proceed? Should he tell Derek he doesnt feel comfortable making the
recommendation?
2. Should he tell Derek that River Falls is not a "good fit" for him?
3. Does he have an obligation to alert the HR manager and/or city manager of the way Derek conducts his
personal life?
4. Is Dereks secret personal life an indication of his values? Does it matter?
1.

To use photos or not: Damaging Photos in an Online Age (Markulla Centre for Ethics)
By Jessica Silliman
Henry Johnson was nearing the end of his first year as editor-in-chief of The Santa Clara, the campus newspaper,
when he received an email from the student director of the Multicultural Center, an organization that governed
many cultural clubs and sponsored many events relating to diversity on campus. She had found what she thought
were particularly offensive pictures from a recent theme party posted on Facebook, the popular social-networking
site. At the party, titled "South of the Border," students dressed up in attire representing Latinos-some came as
janitors, female gangsters and pregnant women. Many students within the MCC were outraged. Henry was shocked
at the pictures and the carelessness of the individuals to not only dress that way, but also to post the images on the
internet. He felt this was an example of the underlying racism that existed on campus. He also immediately saw that
this would be the lead story in the next issue of the weekly newspaper.
Henry sent a reporter to cover the story. As the gossip about the story made its way across campus, some students
were horrified, others were apathetic and some felt the whole issue was being blown out of proportion. Regardless,
Henry knew the paper had to do a story, but he wasn't sure how to handle the photos. The photos had been
removed from Facebook after word spread across campus but, because they were at one point accessible online, he
thought that they were fair game. In addition, Henry felt that the photos must be printed so students could
understand the actual nature of the costumes, but he wasn't sure if their faces should be shown or blurred.
Henry's colleague, the news editor, felt the photos should be run unedited. "They posed for the pictures at the party
and were there to show themselves off," she said. "So let's show them off. We claim we want to be seen as a 'real'
newspaper, so let's act like one and run the photos. You never see blurred images in the San Jose Mercury News
unless it's a photo of someone underage-these individuals knew full well what they were doing."
But Henry wasn't convinced. The paper didn't have photos of everyone at the party, so editors couldn't be sure that
these photos were the most representative-some people could have been in more degrading outfits. In addition,
several recent theme parties at Santa Clara had been deemed offensive to certain groups, but there were no
available photos, so these individuals just seemed to be the victims of time and place. Although he felt what they did
was wrong, he wasn't sure they deserved to be icons of racism on the front page.
Showing their faces and providing their names would forever connect them to racist behavior via a quick Google
search online-a practice often done by potential employers. As a university newspaper editor, Henry had to take this
long-term effect into consideration. How long were they supposed to pay for their wrong-doing?
Henry also believed that showing their faces would draw attention away from the actual issue of racism. Instead of
causing a campus debate, people would be caught up in the identity and culpability of the four individuals and
mistakenly see this as an isolated event.
He consulted the managing editor and they agreed that, in an attempt to err on the side of caution, they would print
the pictures with the faces blurred.
When the newspaper was released that Thursday, the story immediately spread to other news outlets. Within a
week, the story-and the blurred images-appeared on a ten minute segment on CNN's national broadcast (CNN had
asked to have the unblurred images, but Henry refused and only provided the blurred images). Though some
complained about the newspaper's decision to blur the faces, Henry stood by his choice and felt confident in his
judgment.
Discussion Questions:
Is posting a photo on Facebook a public or private act?
Should the age of the individuals photographed be a factor in determining how they should be printed?
Should Henry have provided unblurred photos to CNN? Does CNN wanting unblurred photos point to a
wrong decision by Henry?
4. Would anyone's rights have been violated by publishing non-blurred photos with full names accompanying
them?
5. Do you agree with the editor's decision? Why or why not?
1.
2.
3.

CREATING A LIFE TO SAVE A LIFE

In England, the Whitaker family faced a terrible situation: their son, Charlie, suffered from a rare disorder that
prevented his body from producing red blood cells. Without daily medications and frequent transfusions, Charlie
would simply die. With them, he continues to live, but under close medical care.
For a while, it looks as though Charlies parents had figured out an answer to this dilemma. They proposed to use in
vitro fertilization to have another child, but with an added twist. They would, as is usual in this procedure, have the
eggs fertilized outside the womb in a laboratory dish, but they would then include an additional step. Using new
screening techniques, they would screen the embryos to see which would be most able to donate blood-making cells
to Charlie. That would be the one that they would choose to implant and bring to term.
In contrast to the United States and many other countries, in England someone proposing such a procedure must
obtain government permission in this case, from the Human Fertilization and Embryology Authority. The Authority
rejected the request by the Whitaker family, saying that it was not right to create a human life with the express
intent of saving another life.

Q. This case raises two kinds of questions.

1.) Do you agree with the Authoritys decision? Why or why not? What are the significant moral considerations in
this case? What consideration is decisive for you?
2.) Who should make these decisions? The United States does not currently have such a board, nor do most other
countries. However, something similar is currently under consideration in several countries. Leaving aside financial
considerations about who should bear the cost for the moment, who should have the right to make the final
decision in such cases? Who should make the decision if the procedure is being paid for by federal health insurance?
Private health insurance? The individual patient or family?