>>Seems to me you've always got to compare actions to alternatives. So if a particular institution did bad, what was society's alternative? If [society's] alternative was worse, then it's difficult for society to attack the institution until it's dissected its own behavior first. Let s/he who is without sin throw the first stone etc. Seems to me that people always are eager to throw the first stone.
>
>This seems to have been degraded (mostly by expensive lawyers) to "you need to be perfect to sue us, and nobody's perfect". Then it's the job of paid press to enlarge even the slightest fault of the whistleblower or other claimant to the point that the accused gets away with murder(s).
>
>For instance, just try to say something about whatever poisoning is going on (air, water, food, you name it). If there's a photograph of you with a cigarette, you won't be heard, but shown.

That was my first take on John's reply, as well. There is the concept of "do no harm" with which I imagine he is fairly familiar. That can be used to attack any real or perceived harm regardless of any good that may arise. I don't think the "first stone" comment quite follows in this context - harms should always be exposed or discussed.

But, that can be morally unfair if the alternatives of society at large (whether actions, or simply to do nothing) produce worse outcomes. (bolding above is mine)