Hi Y'all,
Rick Adams wrote:
> Linda wrote:
>
> > And if you provide a web site unlocked and accessible where
> > slander or defamation of
> > character takes place committed by a minor? a youth offender?
> > a college student?
>
> Then, IF it can be proven that harm occurred, you are equally liable.
>
> Your solution would be to prevent free speech on the site, mine is to
> hold them liable if (and only if) someone is harmed. Of the two, your's
> smacks far to much of a total unconcern for rights for me to accept.
And your solution to allow preventable harm (on a managed web site) to occur
with impunity "smacks far too much of a total unconcern for rights for me to
accept.". I think the harm can be prevented. You argue to allow the harm to
occur and then hold the person liable. Again I am reminded of old policies
concerning stalkers.
Additionally, if harmed what is their recourse? A civil suit? There are enough
problems with that solution to fill a stadium. And let's not forget that you
leave the responsibility for documenting and proving harm to the victim. The
individual who encouraged harm or harmed by their statements really is free on
this site to encourage/cause harm with no personal ramifications to them or
their checkbooks.
And does this undo the harm? No, you have passively sat by as a web site
manager and allowed harm to occur. One talked about wanting to kill the
professor. One comment argued that folks should push the professor off of his
bike every time they saw him. Others clearly make statements that can be
permanently damaging to one's professional career. Again, I argue that with
free speech comes responsibility. And for-profit publications as a rule edit
for content. This is not an unusual state of affairs. This site is a
free-for-all with not even the basic assurance that the individuals have taken
the person's class and are not just someone with an axe to grind. To argue for
responsible web site management is a far piece from the move towards fascism
that you accuse me of below.
Perhaps, as you argue that the site should be run without any ethical
underpinnings as to what is published on the site - then, perhaps, we should do
away with ethics for psychologists and researchers. We should not prevent
researchers or clinicians from discussing individual's responses to
questionnaires or clients discourse. We are preventing their free speech with
friends or colleagues. We are preventing them from discussing information which
could be useful to others or just darn interesting. Only if the subject or
client is harmed in a demonstrable way should the psychologist or researcher
held liable.
> Sorry, Linda, but loss of free speech is one of the first stages of
> fascism--you as a holocaust researcher should certainly know that.
I suggest that you take another look at history and avoid overly simplistic
statements couched in ignorance.
linda
--
linda m. woolf, ph.d.
associate professor - psychology
webster university
main webpage: http://www.webster.edu/~woolflm/
Holocaust and genocide studies pages:
http://www.webster.edu/~woolflm/holocaust.html
womens' pages: http://www.webster.edu/~woolflm/women.html
gerontology pages: http://www.webster.edu/~woolflm/gero.html
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
