Re: Reply to Klemz re ethics ...

[BLechtreck@aol.com]

>This is a false, extreme claim. There is no legal threat re ethical
>discussion. The only legal issue involves defamation. 

The problem, of course, is that there was NO brite line for what constitutes
defamation. If, during our ethical discussion, someone mentions a particular
case or example, is the author now liable for defamation? This is why I said
that some chilling would occur, because people won't know if they are
treading too close to a blurry line.

>Of course, previously posted information (re my forward of Damus message on
NDT-L) >merely describes the legal environment. It is not a bar to your
behavior. 

Oh please John, reread that post. Damus' tone was far from "informational",
it was threatening (in fact, I'll take the case for free....). 

>Why is it that you think that defamation is _essential_ to an open
discussion of the ethical >standard for evidence usage?

Tell you what, you give me a brite line on what defamation is (including
every example of what I can and can't talk about), and I'll agree with you.
Till then, I will still believe that Damus' post (and your forward of it),
will chill some good discourse.

Bob Lechtreck
Bakersfield College

---

• Prev by Date: Re: Latin America v. Education
• Next by Date: Mr. Hopper
• Prev by thread: Re: Ethics in Debate
• Next by thread: Mr. Hopper
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

---

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