Re: Reply to Meany

[BLechtreck@aol.com]

>Regarding chill: You did not say that "some chilling would occur." You
>claimed that chilling had already occurred AND that it had not occurred...

I said both? I doubt it. I said that the post chilled discourse, and I still
believe that. It even chilled mine (to some degree).

>In addition, you claimed that the chill would apply to a discussion of the
>ethical use of evidence. As the past several days of postings on the net
>reveal, it is not a bar to a discussion of the ethical use of
>evidence....

Really? How do you know that MANY more people did not join in the
conversation for fear of treading too close to a blurry line because some guy
(probably with an axe to grind) is Lawsuit happy? 

>Clatterbuck's information about liability in a public forum (SLAPP posting)
>and request for suggestions to advance public discussion in light of
>defamation are a welcome addition to the information on this important
issue.

I agree. However, his post had no threatening tone to it.

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

>If the _fact_ that lawyers represent clients, sometimes for free, is a
threat
>to you, you must feel threatened 24-7-365...

Yeah right John. 


>His message was that privacy interests need to be balanced with speech
interests and >that he would represent parties defamed on the net...

Whatever. If you couldn't see the threatening tone, there's little we have to
discuss.

Bob Lechtreck
Bakersfield College

---

• Prev by Date: Re: British Bulldog =s nuke war
• Next by Date: Re: Reply to Meany
• Prev by thread: RE:Quals
• Next by thread: Re: Reply to Meany
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

---

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