Outing. What Are the Rules These Days?

Okay, I'm really struggling with this. When is it appropriate for the media to refer to a closeted celebrity's sexual orientation?

Should the rules be different for traditional print journalists and bloggers?

If it were up to me, here's the rule I would draft, applicable to everybody:

Outing is NOT okay.

Subject to the 3 exceptions listed below, it is always inappropriate to "Out" a closeted public figure. Further, "Downstream Outing" is equally inappropriate. The rule applies even if another publication (magazine, blog. etc.) has earlier disregarded the rule and your publication is merely reporting on the outing itself.

There are three specific exceptions to the NO OUTING RULE:

1. The subject is deceased (ex. recent biographies of Abraham Lincoln, Katherine Hepburn, etc.);

2. The subject engages in illegal or inarguably amoral behavior, the full reporting of which would require reference to their sexual orientation (Think Jim McGreevey or Mark Foley); or

3. The subject espouses positions which are explicitly anti-gay: strongly against gay marriage, says homosexuality is a sin, etc. (Think Ted Haggard)

I haven't seen rules on outing written down anywhere, but for a long time it seemed like the traditional press followed a formula close to the one above. Hell, even the tabloids generally refrained from speculating on someone's sexuality unless they had an explicit picture to back it up (ex: Chad Allen's romp in a hot tub). That meant that, as long as incriminating pics didn't get out, gay and lesbian public figures could pretty much do as they pleased in their private life and not worry that the New York Times would report hearsay about their sex lives.

The gossip bloggers don't seem to be playing by the same rules. Or any rules at all. Their increasing popularity and the mainstream press's willingness to follow their lead puts closeted celebrities in a difficult and unfair position. Here's the sort of crap put out by the gossip blogs (the asterisks are mine):

"According to my best friend's roomates' hairdresser, ***** ******* is a real flamer. They used to date before the star landed that gig on the ******* Channel."

Okay, if you were ***** *******, how would you respond to something like that? Seems to me you'd have two options. Either you take the high road, as Neil Patrick Harris did, and you come out publicly to dispel any further conjecture about your sexual orientation. Or, as is probably more often the case, you retreat even further into the closet - you avoid being seen in public with gay friends, you arrange photo-ops with high profile "beard" girlfriends, you actively lie about your orientation to friends and co-workers.

This second option makes it impossible for you to live a healthy life, either public or private. And if/when you do get outed, your prior hetero-masquerade, frankly, makes you a lousy gay role model.

"Coming out" on whatever level is a brave act. It is a highly personal and emotional rite of passage. So public figures who come out on a grand scale are to be commended. But it unfairly detracts from their bravery when it looks as if they were forced out of the closet against their will. T.R. Knight, Lance Bass, and Neil Patrick Harris aside, this trend of celebrity outing (first by gossip blogs and then later downstream when the traditional media outlets jump onboard the story) is doing some real damage, I think. It's probably costing us some positive gay role models down the road.

I'd love to hear what people think about outing/lancing by the media. What's your take on the Perez Hilton et. al. phenomena? Is it a good thing or a bad thing in terms of gay representation in the media? Anybody have other exceptions to the NO OUTING RULE besides the three listed above?