Regarding the legalities of such discussions, though a court might
agree with Dave Casserly--"defamation simply isn't an issue here"--I
think, to avoid the necessity for the court making that
determination, the watchword is "circumspection." As Dave will surely
grant, ANYTHING is arguable--especially true vs. false--and that
"damages" can be pretty broadly construed. "Excessive
publication" (unnecessarily broad dissemination) may also be more
persuasively argued when the internet/email comes into play. I don't
think that any one of our dance committees can afford to have such a
complaint filed and have to defend--individually and/or corporately--
against it. I'd be particularly wary if the person concerned is a law
student--and appeared spoiling for a fight. Defamation can be become
an issue whether it should be or not.
Regarding the central issue--potential harm to dancers--I agree the
approach should be to the individual concerned, that it should
reference "standards" and that it is the individual's choice whether
or not to abide by those standards. I would add that we owe it to the
dancers on the floor to make that approach very quickly. It took us
an awfully long time to eliminate the problem--the clear potential
for harm--in the most recent case alluded to.
But, "the devil's in the details". Who approaches? What standards are
referenced, how are they determined and where are they to be found
for inspection? And who says the individual has just "chosen" to
leave when that individual disagrees with everything that's said to
him/her? (And how does the "who" doing the approaching enforce his/
her/their decision? Is it the "enforcing who" the same as the
"approaching who"?)
It's my perception we've answered--at last--those questions but,
having missed the last committee meeting, I'm not sure what our plans
for implementation (the details) are. Maybe someone else from our
committee is watching this discussion and could bring us all up-to-date.
Don Peabody
On Nov 24, 2009, at 11:12 PM, David Casserly wrote:
Mark may be no lawyer, but he's correct that defamation simply
isn't an
issue here. To sue somebody for defamation (including libel or
slander),
you have to establish, usually, five things: 1. Some level of intent,
depending on jurisdiction (usually negligence) to make 2. a
statement to a
third party 3. that is false and defamatory 4. about the plaintiff
5. which
is either per se actionable (generally only includes a statement that
somebody sleeps around, committed a crime, has a "loathsome"
disease, or
adversely reflecting on somebody's ability to do business) or gave
rise to
specific other damages. With problem dancers, elements 3 and 5 are
missing,
since the statements aren't provably false and in any case don't
give rise
to damages.
I think that yes, other area organizers should certainly be informed.
There's no reason to let somebody who's a menace to the community
simply go
from dance to dance. It doesn't hurt anything to at least let other
organizers know who the problem dancer is.
Whether to ban somebody from a dance is a much different question.
I think
a good option is to simply approach the individual in question, and
mention
that there are certain community standards at your dance, and if he
wants to
dance there he must abide by those standards. That way it's his
choice.
One issue that came up in some communities discussing this question
was
whether or not it's appropriate to use somebody's name when
discussing such
problems. I'm personally a proponent of using the individual's
name in
email discussions, at dances, or in any other social context. I
don't mean
to try to publicly shame somebody, of course. However, I think
using the
person's name helps to create a sense in the community that these are
problems with an individual, not general problems with the whole
community,
and that for the most part, the dance is a welcoming place. Any
thoughts?
-Dave
-Dave
On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 10:44 PM, Mark Hillegonds
<[email protected]>wrote:
Hi all,
I'm no lawyer, but it seems to me that slander and libel laws are
in place
to address unsubstantiated or otherwise unprovable or untrue
accusations.
It seems reasonable to me that if someone has caused such problems
as to be
banned, that one could notify other communities about the ban.
If an organization has bylaws or policies and procedures around
this, they
might also be amended to contain situations in which other
communities
might
be notified and what will be contained in the notification.
Having the
procedure documented will help advise the leaders in any future
situations.
Mark Hillegonds
Phone: 734-747-7148
Cell: 734-756-8441
Email: [email protected]
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Chris
Weiler
(home)
Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2009 7:36 PM
To: A list for dance organizers
Subject: [Organizers] kickstart - problem dancers
Hello everyone,
It's time to kickstart this forum. It's too valuable a resource to
let
sit unused. I'll start it off with a question that's been brought
up in
a couple of communities that I'm involved in:
When a dancer is causing problems through rough dancing and unwelcome
flirting, seems unable to change and has been banned from one dance
series, should other dance series in the region be informed?
Should they
also ban the person from their dances?
How do we communicate about this without violating slander and
libel laws?
thanks!
Chris Weiler
Goffstown, NH
Board member for BIDA, CDS-Boston and the Scout House Monday Night
Dance
Committee
_______________________________________________
Organizers mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.sharedweight.net/mailman/listinfo/organizers
_______________________________________________
Organizers mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.sharedweight.net/mailman/listinfo/organizers
--
David Casserly
Harvard Law School JD Class of 2011
[email protected]
(cell) 781 258-2761
_______________________________________________
Organizers mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.sharedweight.net/mailman/listinfo/organizers
