Communication Institute for Online Scholarship
Communication Institute for Online
Scholarship Continous online service and innovation
since 1986
Site index
ComAbstracts Visual Communication Concept Explorer Tables of Contents Electronic Journal of Communication ComVista

Exploring the Tension Between the First Amendment and Ethics In the Case of "Outing"
EJC logo
The Electronic Journal of Communication / La Revue Electronique de Communication
**** TOMPKINS **** EJC/REC Vol. 7, No.1 1997 ***************


Paula Tompkins
St. Cloud State University

        Abstract.  Tension between communication ethics
     and freedom of speech issues in the United States
     are presented for classroom discussion in the case
     of the 1991 public outing of closeted homosexual
     Pete William, a U.S.  Assistant Secretary of
     Defense.  Background and the facts of the case
     highlight issues of the rhetorical significance of
     outing and U.S.  Constitutional issues regarding
     the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights and
     privacy.  Questions for student discussion
     provides an opportunity to explore a multi-layed
     ethical problem concerning First Amendment rights
     and the communication values of tolerance,
     honesty, trust, and communication as empowerment.

     It is a truism for students of ethics that while the
law may present a socially codified moral code, the law and
ethics are not synonymous.  Ethical acts are sometimes
against the law, as in acts of civil disobedience.  History
provides many examples of those who argued that certain laws
were unethical.  The First Amendment of the U.S.
Constitution, which established our freedom of speech,
assembly, press and religion, is of particular interest for
our discipline, for it is a founding principle of American
political communication ethics.  The Speech Communication
Association's "Credo for Free and Responsible Communication
in a Democratic Society" endorses free and responsible
communication, both freedom of speech and communication

     A critical element of a communication ethic based upon
the U.S.  First Amendment is protection of the minority
viewpoint, the dissenter, or the protester.  Protest
movements often have challenged our understanding of both
socially and constitutionally acceptable communication acts,
and at the same time raised questions about the ethicality
of these communication acts.  In their challenge of the
majority viewpoint, protest movements also challenge our
understanding of what is socially acceptable and
constitutionally protected speech.  Questions are raised
about whether the challenges to the majority have gone too
far, even if they may be constitutionally protected.

     A recent challenge to the majority's notions of social
acceptability and possible constitutional protection is the
public "outing" of closeted homosexuals in the homosexual
press and subsequent coverage in the mainstream press.  The
case of the public "outing" of Pete Williams, an Assistant
Secretary of Defense, provides students with an opportunity
for exploring some tension points between law and ethics,
and specifically between the First Amendment and
communication ethics.

     The "outing" of Pete Williams is a complex case, with
multiple layers of issues.  The goal in student analysis of
complex cases is to practice crafting ethical responses to a
complex ethical situation.  A second goal for analyzing
complex cases in the classroom is to develop our moral
imaginations (Jaska and Pritchard, 12-13).  A moral
imagination relies upon discernment, discipline, and
creativity.  We apply these capacities when recognizing
ethical issues, analyzing them, and reasoning ethically
about them.  In a complex case we use these skills when
facing the case's moral dilemma or quandary.  The complexity
characteristic of dilemmas and quandaries and the confusion
they foster can feel overwhelming, encouraging us to avert
our eyes from the quandaries a complex case can pose.  This,
in fact, may be a sign that there are significant questions
to be asked and explored.  Encouraging students to apply
their moral imaginations to complex ethical cases challenges
them to remain sensitive to inconsistent constraints and
principles, but not succumb to a moral paralysis of
avoidance or inaction.  Complex ethical cases give students
an opportunity to explore moral courage in communication, of
facing a morally complex situation, engaging in thoughtful
reflection, and choosing a course of action.  Complex cases
are based on a recognition that communication ethics are not
easy or comfortable.

     A fruitful class discussion of the "outing" of Pete
Williams requires an explanation of a variety of issues
which, when combined, produce the complexity of the case.
These issues include what "outing" is and its strategic
significance in the gay/lesbian liberation movement, First
Amendment issues, specifically privacy, before addressing
some of the issues posed by the case itself.  The following
background may be given to students to read or be the basis
for a lecture/discussion in class.


     "Outing" of closeted gays and lesbians is not a new
phenomenon.  It occurred during the McCarthy era and before,
often with an intent to harm the closeted homosexual with
the threat of public disclosure of homosexuality (Gross).
More recently "outing~ has received intensified ethical
scrutiny since the "outing" of the deceased Malcolm Forbes
(the founder of Forbes magazine) by Michelangelo Signorile
in _OutWeek_ (Signorile).  Arguments for the strategic
"outing" of public figures who are homosexual often claim
that by revealing to the heterosexual community the
significant contributions of homosexuals, homosexuality will
become more acceptable to dominant society.  As we
recognizes that not only actors, singers, and movie
directors are "queer," but also CEOs, bankers and
legislators, we will become more comfortable with
homosexuality.  Critical to this strategy is an assumption
about equalization of homosexuality and heterosexuality in
media coverage (Gross, 166-167).  The argument is summarized
as follows.  Because the press tells the truth about the
private lives of heterosexual public figures, one is morally
justified in telling the truth about homosexual public
figures.  The role of the press in social change is
particularly important in this justification for "outing."
The analogy used is the press coverage of out-of-wedlock
relationships and children such as Ingrid Bergman's in the
1950s was an important step in creating social acceptance of
such relationships and their offspring today (Gross, 197).
The goal is equal treatment -- to reach the point where
homosexuals will be able to prominently display pictures of
their significant others on their desks, just as
heterosexuals prominently display their sexual orientation
with pictures of their spouses on their desks.

     "Outing" is controversial in the gay and lesbian
community, primarily because it challenges the traditional
strategy for surviving in a homophobic society.  A gay or
lesbian finds freedom masquerading as a heterosexual.  In
our homophobic society, open gays and lesbians are
vulnerable to discrimination, verbal and physical
harassment, even murder.  "Coming out," publicly stating
one's homosexuality, is a significant step in accepting
one's identity as a gay or lesbian, a process that often
takes years (Gross, 109).  "Coming out" allows a gay or
lesbian to live honestly in regards to their sexual
orientation with friends, family, co-workers and neighbors,
but this honesty is accompanied by real dangers, making both
honesty and privacy double-edged swords.  "Outing" takes
away the closeted gay's or lesbian's freedom to choose to
"come out of the closet" or not, to choose whether or not to
accept the benefits and dangers of publicly communicating
his or her homosexual orientation.  Outing is a coercive
disclosure over which one, as the object of outing, has
little or no control.  Ethical issues include freedom,
privacy, safety from harm, and honesty.

     From a legal standpoint, publicly stating that a
certain person is a homosexual could be a basis for a
defamation law suit.  Defamatory statements are not
protected by the First Amendment.  They are communication
acts that tend to lower a person's reputation in the eyes of
the community (Tedford).  However, a civil lawsuit based on
defamation of character requires that the statements be
false, and in the case of non-defamatory "outing" the
statements concerning homosexuality are true, at least
evidence is provided in support of the claim.  The legal
tests of defamation are not met, leaving the closeted
homosexual limited or no legal protection.  Some concerned
about the legal rights of "outing" targets have turned to
the related First Amendment area of invasion of privacy to
find some constitutional protection.

     Many of us believe that privacy is a constitutional
right.  Privacy appears nowhere in the Constitution or the
Bill of Rights, although Supreme Court Justices recognize
privacy as existing within the "penumbra" of rights
enumerated in the Bill of Rights (see Griswold v.
Connecticut).  The concept of privacy as we know it today
was first articulated in a law review article by Samuel
Warren and Louis Brandeis in 1890.  The Warren and Brandeis
concept of privacy is known as tort, or civil privacy and
focuses on the media's intrusion into those aspects of our
lives that we consider private.  Warren and Brandeis were
concerned with what they considered the excesses of "yellow
journalism" at the end of the nineteenth century.  Their
arguments developed into the legal recognition of the need
for privacy to 1) avoid the public disclosure of personal
matters and 2) maintain independence or autonomy in making
certain types of decisions regarding such personal matters
as marriage, procreation, contraception, family
relationships, child rearing and education (Elwood).[1] This
has developed into 4 areas of privacy in law -- l)
disclosure of private matters of no legitimate concern to
the public, 2) publication of distortions or half-truths
that create "false light" or picture of a person, 3) use or
appropriation of a person's image name without permission,
or 4) intrusion into an individual's private space or
solitude to gather information (Tedford, 108-110 and
Middleton and Chamberlin, 166-220).

     "Outing" of a closeted gay or lesbian concerns the
first area of privacy, the disclosure of private matters.
There are four standards or tests to determine if a
disclosure is an invasion of privacy -- l)the plaintiff (the
homosexual being "outed") must prove there is a public
disclosure of 2) private facts, 3) regarding a matter which
would be highly offensive or objectionable to a reasonable
person, and 4) which is not a legitimate concern to the
public.  Elwood, writing in the Yale Law Journal, argues
that in practice "legitimate concern of the public" or
"newsworthiness" outweighs the first three tests for
privacy.  This is cause for concern when it is argued "that
because the media's vocation is to determine what is
newsworthy and what is not, anything that is published is
newsworthy.  This view mistakenly equates public interest
with the 'public's appetite,' and its adoption would
eliminate the public disclosure tort altogether" (Elwood,
755).  When newsworthiness becomes the predominate standard
for whether or not there is an invasion of privacy for a
public figure, there may be little or no legal basis for
individual privacy.

     In the case of "outing" the legal question appears to
be whether or not the public disclosure of a homosexual
orientation is indeed private, highly offensive or
objectionable to a reasonable person, and not a legitimate
concern of the public.  This question is not so simple.
While the courts have found that public reporting of names
already part of a public record, e.g. a court record, or
publishing pictures of those who participate publicly in gay
rights activities are not invasion of privacy, the court did
find that the disclosure of the transsexuality of the first
female study body president of a California college was an
invasion of privacy (Elwood, 757-759).  The court decided
that the student's transsexuality was not a legitimate
concern of the public.  Further complicating this matter is
that homosexual acts are criminalized in 20 states under
state sodomy laws Newsweek, p. 29 and Legal Issues Regarding
Sex).  In these states, by common law, homosexual acts (in
contrast to the fact of homosexual orientation) are public
rather than private.  Society has an interest in criminal
acts performed in private, thereby making criminal acts
public by definition (Theuman).  For example, most murders
occur in private, but because of society's interest in
preventing murders, a murderer cannot claim his or her
privacy rights are violated during a murder investigation
and subsequent trial.  If state law criminalizes sodomy, by
legal definition, homosexual intimate acts are public rather
than private.

     Into this complicated legal and cultural construction
is the gay rights advocates use of "outing."  "Outing" is a
rhetorical strategy that attempts to equalize cultural
perceptions of homosexual and heterosexual orientations.  In
a sense it is a rhetorical response to AIDS, particularly
the heterosexual society's understanding of AIDS in the
1980s as a disease that kills "them" but leaves "us"
unscathed.  Michelangelo Signorile, who is credited with the
resurgence of "outing" with his article on Forbes, expressed
his outrage as a gossip columnist being fed stories for
publication about heterosexual relationships of public
figures he knew were homosexual (See Signorile, pp. 193-200
and 285-303).  This occurred while gay men were dying from
AIDS related diseases and anti-gay sentiment was increasing.
Signorile argued that public figures who were closeted
homosexuals were able to live a gay lifestyle, while using
their status, money and access to media outlets to project a
heterosexual public image.

     "Outing" challenges the traditional strategy of secrecy
used by homosexuals to live in our homophobic society.  Yet,
the potential of "outing" to pose risks to closeted
homosexuals, particularly private citizens, can be real
ranging from ostracism, discrimination, physical assault,
and even to murder.  Further complicating this ethical mix
is the legal status of "outing."  If the "outing" is a lie
told in reckless disregard of the truth, there is grounds
for a defamation law suit.  If it is not, however, there are
limited grounds for legal redress, and in states where
sodomy is criminalized there may be no legal grounds for a
lawsuit based upon invasion of privacy.

     First amendment rights, the criminalization of
homosexual acts, privacy, honesty, and the differing calls
for justice within the homosexual community combine to
provide a multi layered ethical problem.  It is a moral
quandary that encompasses significant ethical issues,
particularly regarding communication, for "outing"
ultimately concerns whether one remains silent or speaks.
And if one speaks, what is said?

                          CASE [2]

     Michelangelo Signorile had established himself as the
"Pope" of Outing" with his "outing" of Malcolm Forbes, after
Forbes' death, in a 1990 issue of _OutWeek_.  Signorile had
received tips that an Assistant Secretary of Defense, Pete
Williams, was gay.  Williams' position was civilian.  During
the 1991 military operation in the Persian Gulf, Operation
Desert Storm, Williams acted as a Pentagon spokesperson to
the television and print media.  Tips to Signorile about
Pete Williams gay activities increased, just as Signorile
was writing a story to "out" Williams for _Outweek_.

     On June 28, 1991, Michael Petrelis of The Queer Nation
held a press conference attended by reporters from the
_Washington Post_, Associated Press, and others at which he
announced that Pete Williams was an openly closeted gay man
who hypocritically remained silent as the Department of
Defense continued its policy of ejecting thousands of gays
and lesbians from the military.  No one ran a story.
Petrelis also put up posters around Washington picturing
Williams with these words in large print:  "ABSOLUTELY

     Before Signorile's article on Williams could be
published, _OutWeek_ closed down.  The story was then
accepted by the editor of the _Village Voice_.  Several
staff members protested the editor's decision to publish the
article.  The _Village Voice_ held an unprecedented open
meeting with its staff on July 3 to discuss the story.
Despite arguments in favor of publication by an openly gay
member of the staff, which pointed out the military's active
discrimination and the hypocrisy of enforcing one standard
for recruits and another for high ranking officials, staff
members argued that it would be "inappropriate" to "out"

     Signorile's article finally was printed by the
_Advocate_ as its cover story for August 27.  The _Advocate_
previously maintained an anti-"outing" policy.  The cover of
the August 27 issue showed Williams. picture with the
headline:  "Did this Man ruin 2,000 lives.  Know About
Suicides, Waste Taxpayers' Millions on Military Witchhunts?"
A two-page editorial opening the issue started with this
statement:  "We commit ourselves to this singular instance
of outing in the name of the 12,966 soldiers who have been
outed by the military since 1982" (Rouillard 1991 cited in
Gross, 100).  Signorile's article profiled Williams as a gay
man who participated in Washington's gay circles, reviewed
details and consequences of the military's anti-gay
policies, particularly the case of Gulf War veterans.

     The story of Pete Williams' "outing" was carried by a
local New York television station and in Jack Anderson's
August 3 column, which was syndicated in approximately 800
newspapers.  Some large papers, e.g.  _Washington Post_ and
_San Francisco Chronicle_, did not run the column but many
did and some ran their own stories.  A number of stories
framed the issue as one of hypocrisy and discrimination.

     The _New York Times_ reported that when asked about
Pete Williams his protege, the Secretary of Defense Dick
Cheney defended the right of homosexuals to hold civilian
jobs at the Pentagon, saying that as long as they fulfilled
their professional responsibilities their private lives were
their own business.(August 5:  A10 cited in Gross, 102-103).

                   Issues for Discussion

     "Outing" is a public disclosure of private information,
usually by the press, about the sexual orientation of an
individual, which that individual prefers to remain secret.
A class discussion of the "outing" of Pete Williams may
focus on five general areas:  1) disclosure, 2) privacy, 3)
First Amendment principles, 4) ethical principles, and 5)
the tension between law and ethics.  Large group discussions
tend to focus on one area.  Using small groups to discuss
different areas and then to report on their discussions as a
lead-in to a general group discussion can be helpful.

1. Disclosure.

     Self-disclosure is one way we attempt to influence
     how others perceive us.  With "outing," someone
     else provides personal information that influences
     how others perceive us.  Discuss "coming out" and
     "outing" as communication acts of disclosure.
     What are the differences between "coming out"
     interpersonally vs. publicly?  In what other
     situations do we disclose personal information
     about another?  Create a list of ethical
     guidelines for disclosing information about
     another person.

     Discussion of interpersonal issues helps provide a
basis for discussion of the human dimension of this case.
"Coming out" and "outing" are communication acts that affect
self-presentation and self-concept formation.  A model of
the self-concept in communication may be helpful in focusing
this discussion.  I recommend the model in Dan O'Hair,
Gustav W. Friedrich, John Wiemann and Mary Wiemann,
_Competent Communication_ (p. 97).  Points to highlight in
this discussion are the relationship between trust and
disclosure, the power of information, and the role of public
disclosure in shaping public perception of an individual's
credibility.  Popular culture is replete with examples of
public disclosure of private information on talk shows.
Jamieson argues in _Eloquence in an Electronic Age_ that
disclosure of private information is a defining
characteristic of eloquence in today's political discourse.

2. Privacy

     To what extent is our political freedom based upon
     personal privacy?  Identify specific practices
     that protect your personal privacy and your

     Secret ballots, confidential information,
attorney-client privilege are all practices that protect
both our privacy and our personal freedom.  Privacy provides
a zone, sometimes physical, sometimes emotional, sometimes
informational, around each person to which access is
limited.  This is a point at which secrecy and privacy
overlap.  Secrecy is an additional shield to protect our
privacy, and our freedom to act as we choose within that
zone of privacy.  A discussion of the tension between the
freedom of the individual and the needs of society or a
community to hold its members accountable for their
individual actions would be relevant here.  The background
information concerning the public's interest in criminal
acts committed in secrecy also is relevant here.  In this
case the criminal act is sodomy.  From a legal standpoint
the distinction between homosexual *acts* and homosexual
*orientation* is a fundamental distinction, the former
cannot be private in states with sodomy laws while the
second is private.

     Is privacy a critical refuge for homosexuals
     living in a homophobic society or is it a
     double-edged sword that keeps gays and lesbians on
     the margins of society?  Is being "in the closet"
     a form of secrecy or is it privacy?  Was Pete
     Williams keeping a secret or protecting his

     One argument defending the legality of "outing" is that
it is not an invasion of privacy, but the telling of a
secret about a person's sexual orientation.  Publicly
disclosing information about specific sexual acts would be
an invasion of privacy, publicly revealing someone's sexual
orientation is not (Gross, 168).

     Underlying this distinction between privacy and secrecy
is a ambivalent understanding of secrets.  Secrets are
necessary for protecting the individual, but they also may
conceal socially disapproved, illegal or unethical acts.
See Sissela Bok, _Secrets:  On the Ethics of Concealment and
Revelation_ (NY:  Vintage Books, 1989) for a systematic
discussion of secrecy.  A generalized mistrust of the
secrets of government officials and public figures finds
expression in First Amendment protection of the press in the
areas of defamation and invasion of privacy.  The Supreme
Court has given the press greater latitude in criticizing or
revealing secrets of government officials or public figures
(permanent or transitory).  For further information see
Tedford or Middleton and Chamberlin for a summary of case
law in this area.

3. Freedom of Speech Issues

     A primary purpose of the First Amendment is to
     allow expression of unpopular ideas to foster
     debate and discussion of those ideas.  Did the
     decision to publish the "outing" of Pete Williams
     help foster debate and discussion of gays and
     lesbians in the military or was it simply to whet
     the public's appetite for private information to
     sell papers or attract viewers?  Hypothesize the
     possible arguments used to argue for or against
     publishing this "outing" at the _Advocate_,
     _Village Voice_, and your home town newspaper in a
     Jack Anderson column.  What criteria could
     journalists or editors use to help distinguish
     between information that fosters debate and
     discussion of issues and information that whets
     the public appetite for private information about
     the private lives of individuals?

     Discussion here could focus on clarifying what is
newsworthy.  Encourage student to clarify what they see as
the role of public communication in fostering public
discussion and debate over issues, in this case the issue of
gays and lesbians in the military.

     In First Amendment law private individuals have a
     greater right to privacy than do public figures,
     in part because public figures have greater access
     to communication channels to defend and influence
     public perceptions of their character and the
     generally greater newsworthiness of their lives.
     Is Pete Williams a private individual or a public
     figure?  Discuss the importance of the distinction
     between "outing" private individuals and public

     Private individuals have a greater zone of privacy than
do public figures.  But the problem of defining a public
figure is, according to one federal judge, like "trying to
nail a jelly fish to the wall."  Is Pete Williams a public
figure because he is a Department of Defense spokesperson
during Operation Desert Storm?  If he was not in the public
eye, would he then be a private individual?

4. Ethical Issues

     Staffers at the _Village Voice_ decided that
     Signorile's article "outing" Williams should not
     be published there because it was not
     "appropriate."  Although we don't haye a
     transcript of the discussion, hypothesize about
     the arguments against publication because the
     article was "inappropriate."  Is "appropriateness"
     an adequate criterion for ethical decision-making?
     What are the strength and limits of
     appropriateness as an issue in ethical reasoning?

     Students may contrast the criteria of "newsworthiness"
and "appropriateness."  "Appropriateness" is a criteria more
typically used to evaluate communication competence from a
perspective of communication rules or in public speaking
regarding adaptation to an audience.  Students can discuss
if these or other notions of "appropriateness" may have been
used by the staff of the _Village Voice_, especially in
light of an openly gay staffer's use of the criterion of
"consistency" in his argument for publication.  Encourage
students to identify relevant ethical criteria or principles
in deciding whether or not to publish this article.

        The _Advocate_ operated with an anti-"outing"
        editorial policy until the article "outing'' Pete
        Williams.  Discuss whether this change in editorial
        policy was ethical?

     Students can use this question to explore the strengths
and limitations of situational ethics.  Another approach
could be a discussion of how we decide to change our ethical
standards.  Any discussion can include what about the Pete
Williams case that justifies the editors of the _Advocate_
changing their editorial policy.

     What ethical guidelines should journalists or
     editors use in deciding whether to print an
     article "outing" a closet homosexual?

     Students should be encouraged to go beyond
"newsworthiness" to identify, in general terms, what makes
information "newsworthy,"' such as public policy, human
interest, fostering community.  In the case of "outing,"
students can clarify what criteria should be considered
before investigation into the private lives of public

5. The Tension between Law and Ethics

     Discuss the idea of law as a codified moral code
     -- what is legal is ethical and what is illegal is

     Encourage the students to explore the advantages and
disadvantages of law as a vehicle for communicating and
enforcing moral standards.  Topics to discuss could include
law as an expression of community moral standards, how law
influences our moral imaginations, how the First Amendment
shapes our understanding of what constitutes ethical
communication.  This last topic can be compared and
contrasted to our disciplinary understanding of
communication ethics.

     Discuss how the law may have constrained ethical
     decision-making in the case of Pete Williams.

     Students may choose one more stakeholder positions in
exploring this question, e.g. gay rights advocates,
Signorile, the individuals who called Signorile with
information about Williams, the _Advocate_, the _Village
Voice_, and Jack Anderson, to name a few.


     The "outing" of Pete Williams provides students of
communication ethics an opportunity to explore the tension
between the First Amendment and communication ethics, as
well as the tension between differing communication values.
In our discipline there is a complex interplay between the
First Amendment and values taught in our classes, such as
tolerance, honesty, trust, and communication as a means of
empowerment for the redress of grievances.  In the case of
the "outing" of Pete Williams not only are these
communication values in conflict, the legality of ethical
decision-making may be an issue.  The case presents a
multi-layered ethical problem with quandaries we would
prefer to avoid, if possible.  By choosing avoidance we
silence ourselves, not necessarily out of malice, but
perhaps despair over the inconsistencies in our value
commitments.  Complex cases like this can provide students
with a process for sorting through and thinking about
ethical issues in a complex case.  The process does not
insure a single ethical judgment, but it encourages us to be
thoughtful and, in the long run, make better ethical
decisions.  Discussion of complex cases also can provide us
with an opportunity to explore with our students what is
moral courage in communication -- to remain silent, to
speak, and if to speak, what to say.


     1. The constitutional, in contrast to tort, right to
privacy is recognized as preventing the government from 1)
disclosing information that is personal in nature or 2)
interfering with a citizen's personal autonomy (Elwood,

     2. This case is drawn upon chronology of the Pete
Williams case found in Larry Gross, _Contested Closets:  The
Politics and Ethics of Outing_, (Minneapolis:  UP Minnesota,
1993).  This study provides a analysis of "outing" from a
communication perspective, and copies of articles from the
gay press, including difficult to locate articles from
_OutWeek_ and the _Advocate_, representing the debate in the
alternative press concerning the practice of outing.


     Bok, Sissela.  Secrets:  On the Ethics of Concealment
and Revelation.  NY:  Vintage Books, 1989.

     Elwood, John.  "Outing, Privacy, and the First
Amendment," Yale Law Journal. 102 (1992), 747-776.

     Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479.

     Gross.  Larry.  Contested Closets:  The Politics and
Ethics of Outing.  Minneapolis:  UP Minnesota, 1993.

     Jamieson, Kathleen Hall.  Eloquence in an Electronic
Age:  The Transformation of Political Speechmaking.  New
York:  Oxford UP, 1988.

     Kaplan, David A. and Daniel Klaidman.  "A Battle, Not
the War."  Newsweek. 3 June 1996. p. 24-29.

     Middleton, Kent R. and Bill F. Chamberlin.  The Law of
Public Communication.  NY:  Longman, 1988.

     O'Hair, Dan, Gustav Friedrich, John Wiemann, and Mary
Wiemann.  Competent Communication.  NY:  St.  Martin's
Press, 1995.

     Signorile, Michelangelo.  ''The Other Side of
Malcolm,'' OutWeek, 18, March 1990. in Gross, Larry.
Contested Closets:  The Politics and Ethics of Outing.
Minneapolis:  UP Minnesota, 1993, pp.207-216.

     -----"Gossip Watch."  OutWeek. 1 October, 1989, 8
October 1989, 17 December 1989, in Gross, Larry.  Contested
Closets:  The Politics and Ethics of Outing.  Minneapolis,
UP Minnesota, 1993, pp. 193-200.

     -----"Gossip Watch."  OutWeek. 18 April, 1990, 18 July,
1990, 26 December 1990, 20 February 1991, and 27 March 1991
in Larry Gross.  Contested Closets:  The Politics and Ethics
of Outing.  Minneapolis, UP Minnesota, 1993. pp.

     Tedford, Thomas.  Freedom of Speech in the United
States.  Second edition.  NY:  McGraw-Hill, 1993.

     Theuman, John E. "Validity of Statute Making Sodomy a
Criminal Offense." 20 ALR4th 1009.

     United States Legal Issues Regarding Sex:  US Sodomy
Laws State by State.

     Warren, Samuel and Louis Brandeis, "The Right to
Privacy" Harvard Law Review 4 (1890), 193-220 in Ervin H.
Pollack, ed.  The Brandeis Reader.  NY:  Oceana
Publications, 1956, pp. 85-105.

Author: Paula Tompkins
        Department of Speech Communication
        720 South Fourth St.
        St. Cloud State Universtiy
        St. Cloud, Minnesota 563301-4498
        (320) 255-4982
                       Copyright 1997
    Communication Institute for Online Scholarship, Inc.

 This file may not be publicly distributed or reproduced
 without permission of the Communication Institute for
 Online Scholarship, P.O. Box 57, Rotterdam Jct., NY 12150
 USA (phone: 518-887-2443).