[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Date Index] [Thread Index] [Author Index]
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page

Re: Re ethics and action

>I am surprised at the tone Bob.

I don't see why. My first post on this subject was very much in favor of
doing whatever we have to do to get some sort of standard for evidence. Why
would you be surprised when someone tries to "scare" us away from that goal?

>I think forwarding that post was a wise thing to do.  I think perhaps you
have taken the 
>post "out of context", it seemed to back up some of the comments made
prveviously >concerning slanderous behavior.

I doubt it. John's first post on the subject said that he was opposed to a
discussion of this sort of the L. His next post was a veiled warning. I think
it is pretty obvious which way he is leaning.

>There have been other posts speculating on potential legal implications of
such a 
>focused discussion, I am unsure why this particular post would have any
chilling effect.

Did you read the post? It was VERY threatening in nature (to the point where
the author said he would take the case for free). I think this post went
beyond mere information and so much as said that there WOULD be legal action
taken against people who crossed certain lines (without any standard for that
line). THIS is where the chill comes in. Do I discuss an issue where I don't
kow how close I can tread a fine line? The post, I would bet, certainly
prevented some people from entering into the discussion that might have
without it.

>It also shows that people must be responsible for their actions, even on the
net (refer to >Bears's posting regarding the increase in "cyberlaw".

I don't remember anyone saying that we weren't responsible for our actions.
However, to "assume" that people would defame before the discussion even gets
going is silly. 

>If a "calm" discussion could take place on the listserve then perhaps it 
>would be wise. 

Hmmm, please show me an example of a person who has been anything but calm on
this topic so far (except for those who oppose the discussion).

>However, the individuals who want the discussion to take place ignore all of
the legality >arguments when pushing the discussion.  

Hmmm, please show me where you get this idea. Everyone I know of, so far, has
ONLY been concerned with setting standards for ethical evidence, and
penalties for FUTURE violations. 

Point blank John, do you think we need to set standards (if we can) for what
constitutes proper evidence? If so, how do you propose we go about setting up
those standards? Would you rather let a committee of 5-7 have ALL the voice
for the entire community, or should we all be allowed a voice?

I don't understand your reluctance for this discussion to proceed. If there
had been slanderous accusations involved, I could see it. But, so far, the
posts have been evidence specific.

Just trying to find out where you're coming from on this topic.

Bob Lechtreck
Bakersfield College
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page