Repeating Negative Thoughts, Is That Civility?

I'm still a thinking on it, but my thinking at the moment is I should allow myself some room in what ill information I pass along about others.

If a person didn't say anything negative about another person, he could hardly so much as discuss current affairs. Could he speak much of the Egyptian unrest without speaking of Hosni Mubarak and why so many Egyptians do not like him?

Could he speak of immigration and undocumented residents without something negative about someone being said?

The issue, then, is where to draw the line. What of news articles suggesting Jon Huntsman Jr. is not tied to his religion strongly? I obviously have decided that, too, is within the perimeters of what can be passed along, or I wouldn't be mentioning it at this time.  Huntsman has been quoted as saying his credentials in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are soft, and he has been quoted as saying, "I can't say I'm overly religious."

Salacious gossip? Perhaps. But I do agree it belongs within civil public discourse. One could argue that that is because he is a public figure, one who could again run for office, and therefore the public has the right to know.

Is that why? Or would we say neighbors have the right to know the level of his testimony, even if he were not a government official, and being touted as a presidential candidate? I don't know that I have to come to a conclusion on that, as my reflections are primarily on public discourse, but most would surely agree we have less right, less need, to pass along salacious gossip when it is about a private individual, maybe no need to pass it along, at all.