This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/13/opinion/masha-gessen-when-is-outing-gays-right-gawker-russia.html

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
When Is Outing Right? When Is Outing Justified?
(about 3 hours later)
A man who works for the media is outed for having had gay sex, causing an uproar. Critics of the outing far outnumber its supporters, and the post is soon taken down. This describes what happened recently in New York, where the site Gawker exposed a male media executive’s relationship with a male sex worker. The description also fits a series of recent events in Moscow. The similarity of the two storylines is as striking as is the difference in contexts.A man who works for the media is outed for having had gay sex, causing an uproar. Critics of the outing far outnumber its supporters, and the post is soon taken down. This describes what happened recently in New York, where the site Gawker exposed a male media executive’s relationship with a male sex worker. The description also fits a series of recent events in Moscow. The similarity of the two storylines is as striking as is the difference in contexts.
On July 24, a young man who hosts a show on a Russian entertainment television channel posted a picture on Instagram with a seemingly unremarkable caption: “Girls wield some sort of magic power over us guys, making them able to get us to do whatever they want.” Shortly afterward, Kseniya Sobchak, one of the country’s best-known TV journalists — who in recent years has abandoned the Putin establishment in favor of the protest culture — linked to the young man’s post on her own Instagram account, and wrote: “This post is a vivid illustration of why it is so important to foster tolerant attitudes toward sexual minorities.”On July 24, a young man who hosts a show on a Russian entertainment television channel posted a picture on Instagram with a seemingly unremarkable caption: “Girls wield some sort of magic power over us guys, making them able to get us to do whatever they want.” Shortly afterward, Kseniya Sobchak, one of the country’s best-known TV journalists — who in recent years has abandoned the Putin establishment in favor of the protest culture — linked to the young man’s post on her own Instagram account, and wrote: “This post is a vivid illustration of why it is so important to foster tolerant attitudes toward sexual minorities.”
Ms. Sobchak went on to explain that the TV host was a fixture of Moscow’s gay party circuit and had been in a relationship with a prominent executive in the pro-Kremlin media. “He is compelled to write these humiliating posts about female attention because he knows that if he comes out, he will be fired.”Ms. Sobchak went on to explain that the TV host was a fixture of Moscow’s gay party circuit and had been in a relationship with a prominent executive in the pro-Kremlin media. “He is compelled to write these humiliating posts about female attention because he knows that if he comes out, he will be fired.”
The controversy that followed hewed to a familiar outline, and at first glance seemed identical to the Gawker controversy. Was this outing a public service, or a violation of the men’s privacy? In the case of the Gawker outing, the conclusions seemed self-evident: The man was not a public figure and his outing served no identifiable public purpose, so the disclosure — which in addition appears to have been based on leaked private messages — was an unjustifiable violation of his privacy. In Moscow, the issues were more complicated.The controversy that followed hewed to a familiar outline, and at first glance seemed identical to the Gawker controversy. Was this outing a public service, or a violation of the men’s privacy? In the case of the Gawker outing, the conclusions seemed self-evident: The man was not a public figure and his outing served no identifiable public purpose, so the disclosure — which in addition appears to have been based on leaked private messages — was an unjustifiable violation of his privacy. In Moscow, the issues were more complicated.
One of the men exposed by Ms. Sobchak was an executive at a pro-Kremlin tabloid whose bread and butter is, in fact, the violation of people’s privacy. Its journalists barge into hospital rooms and private apartments, or record their subjects under false pretenses. They often feed on information from law enforcement, publishing transcripts of surveillance tapes. So the outing could be interpreted as a blow against the odious pro-Kremlin tabloid.One of the men exposed by Ms. Sobchak was an executive at a pro-Kremlin tabloid whose bread and butter is, in fact, the violation of people’s privacy. Its journalists barge into hospital rooms and private apartments, or record their subjects under false pretenses. They often feed on information from law enforcement, publishing transcripts of surveillance tapes. So the outing could be interpreted as a blow against the odious pro-Kremlin tabloid.
Could it be argued that outing one or both of the Russian men was a public service? The reasoning seems solid. Most Russians believe that they have never met a gay person in their lives, so exposing two prominent, popular young men as gay may change popular perceptions. This is the classic argument for coming out: After realizing that some of their friends, neighbors and family members — or television hosts — are gay, people will become more tolerant of homosexuality. There is also the classic argument in favor of outing: Exposing gay people who publicly hold anti-gay positions is a way to call out their hypocrisy.Could it be argued that outing one or both of the Russian men was a public service? The reasoning seems solid. Most Russians believe that they have never met a gay person in their lives, so exposing two prominent, popular young men as gay may change popular perceptions. This is the classic argument for coming out: After realizing that some of their friends, neighbors and family members — or television hosts — are gay, people will become more tolerant of homosexuality. There is also the classic argument in favor of outing: Exposing gay people who publicly hold anti-gay positions is a way to call out their hypocrisy.
What about the violation of privacy? Ms. Sobchak was never entrusted with a secret: Rather, she exposed what had been common knowledge in a closed community. This is how outing used to work in the United States in the 1990s, when the term was coined. I was a journalist in the U.S. gay press at the time, and I was in the pro-outing camp. Back then, I published a piece in Out Magazine exposing a Russian nationalist politician, based on interviews with men who had had sex with the politician after meeting him in Moscow cruising spots. I did not, and do not, think my article violated the man’s privacy, because none of my sources had been sworn to secrecy.What about the violation of privacy? Ms. Sobchak was never entrusted with a secret: Rather, she exposed what had been common knowledge in a closed community. This is how outing used to work in the United States in the 1990s, when the term was coined. I was a journalist in the U.S. gay press at the time, and I was in the pro-outing camp. Back then, I published a piece in Out Magazine exposing a Russian nationalist politician, based on interviews with men who had had sex with the politician after meeting him in Moscow cruising spots. I did not, and do not, think my article violated the man’s privacy, because none of my sources had been sworn to secrecy.
But even if the recent Moscow outing could be construed as a public service and does not constitute a violation of privacy, the ultimate question remains: Was it worth the pain and danger it may have caused, and who decides whether it was worth it? Ms. Sobchak wrote about the stakes in her post: Her revelation could cost the TV host his job. Anton Krasovsky, another television journalist who came out in early 2013 and was fired within 24 hours, wrote a post criticizing the outing by Ms. Sobchak, in which he detailed the consequences of his own decision: “Every day I go into the dark, unsecured entryway of my building knowing that I may not make it up to my apartment alive. On several occasions I have been attacked by lunatics who screamed, ‘Faggot, get the **** out of our building or I’ll call the police.’ A couple of times people have recognized me on Novy Arbat Street and tried to beat me up. But this is my war, and I declared it myself. I am willing to die fighting.”But even if the recent Moscow outing could be construed as a public service and does not constitute a violation of privacy, the ultimate question remains: Was it worth the pain and danger it may have caused, and who decides whether it was worth it? Ms. Sobchak wrote about the stakes in her post: Her revelation could cost the TV host his job. Anton Krasovsky, another television journalist who came out in early 2013 and was fired within 24 hours, wrote a post criticizing the outing by Ms. Sobchak, in which he detailed the consequences of his own decision: “Every day I go into the dark, unsecured entryway of my building knowing that I may not make it up to my apartment alive. On several occasions I have been attacked by lunatics who screamed, ‘Faggot, get the **** out of our building or I’ll call the police.’ A couple of times people have recognized me on Novy Arbat Street and tried to beat me up. But this is my war, and I declared it myself. I am willing to die fighting.”
In fact, Mr. Krasovsky did not declare this war: It was the Kremlin that did, several years ago, when it began pushing legislation limiting the rights of Russian L.G.B.T. citizens. Can a gay person choose to sit this war out? I lived in Russia as an out lesbian for 20 years, and my family and I suffered the full brunt of the anti-gay laws, from being violently attacked to having to flee the country. I have implored other gay people to come out as a response to the homophobic attitudes the Kremlin campaign has engendered.In fact, Mr. Krasovsky did not declare this war: It was the Kremlin that did, several years ago, when it began pushing legislation limiting the rights of Russian L.G.B.T. citizens. Can a gay person choose to sit this war out? I lived in Russia as an out lesbian for 20 years, and my family and I suffered the full brunt of the anti-gay laws, from being violently attacked to having to flee the country. I have implored other gay people to come out as a response to the homophobic attitudes the Kremlin campaign has engendered.
Yet when I asked myself whether I would have outed the men Ms. Sobchak exposed, I found myself filled with doubt. The risks of turning someone into a recognizable gay man in Moscow are so high that analogies with outings in America, even those that occurred one quarter century ago, fall short. A better historical analogy may be with the Jews of Germany facing the anti-Semitic laws of the early 1930s. Could a German Jew choose to sit out the war declared by Hitler? Hardly. But what right would anyone have had to expose someone as Jewish in, say, Berlin in 1934?Yet when I asked myself whether I would have outed the men Ms. Sobchak exposed, I found myself filled with doubt. The risks of turning someone into a recognizable gay man in Moscow are so high that analogies with outings in America, even those that occurred one quarter century ago, fall short. A better historical analogy may be with the Jews of Germany facing the anti-Semitic laws of the early 1930s. Could a German Jew choose to sit out the war declared by Hitler? Hardly. But what right would anyone have had to expose someone as Jewish in, say, Berlin in 1934?