----- Original Message ----- From: "J. van Baardwijk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 10:13 AM Subject: Re: Some things are too good to last
> At 09:08 31-10-2002 -0600, Dan Minette wrote: > > > >You appear to ignore extemely credible evidence that has been presented on > >Brin-l.detailing how such a threat cannot simply be ignored. The problem > >with such a website with names and libel is that it is extremely visable. > >Let us assume that a curious person who heard about Gautam would type in > >his name. It is probable that it would list Jeroen's page as one of the > >first hits. The same is true with my name. > > If poster X writes "Jeroen, you are an asshole", and I put that post up on > a website, how can it possibly be libelous? I am merely quoting said poster. Well, if you did nothing more than snip quotes out of context, then it might not be libel. However, if you added the editorializing that you suggested that you would, it probably would be. Further, even if it not technically lible, threatening RL harm simply because someone got in a flame war with you is wrong. One other thing worth noting. You have written things far stronger than what's been written at you. If you want proof, contact me offline. I really don't want to drag those posts in front of everyone. Given the forbearance of others regarding your posts, threats of RL harm really seems way way out of line to me. > > >Gautam said that his employer would require him to quit the list; they > >don't like conterversy. > > IMHO, nobody should go work for such an employer; after all, what the > employer is doing in such a case is telling the employee what s/he can and > cannot do and say in his/her spare time. I can imagine that an employer > would be opposed to letting employees send out controversial personal > e-mails from work, but what an employee does outside work hours is the > employee's business, not the employer's. Not when it affects the employer's reputation. For example, if an employee of McKensey (sp) was on TV as a leader of the KKK, McKensey is not legally oblidged to keep said employee. Doing harm to the reputation of a company is grounds for dismissal. Especially, when employees are told about it to begin with. > And then of course there is this little thing called "freedom of speech". Freedom of speech means that the government cannot prohibit a wide range of speach. It doesn't mean that the government is oblidged to make sure that there are no consequences from said speech. > >I do not see how you can ask someone to have ignored your husbands threats > >to people's livelihoods. > > First, an employer who would use a couple of e-mails as a reason to not > hire a person, would be a lousy employer anyway. Bull. The reality is that, for many jobs, there are a number of applicants and uncertain information. Many jobs get hundreds of applicants. All it takes is one possible negative to get a resume placed in the big "do not follow up on" pile, instead of the small "call" pile. Further, I find it reprehensible for you to dismiss any responsibility for keeping someone from getting a job because "the employer would have been lousy anyway." Its not yours to decide. >If he uses that sort of methods, he is likely to use other questionable reasons as well to decide > whether or not to fire an employee (such as "how often does this employee > leave his desk to get some coffee?" and "I am a smoker -- is this employee > opposed to smoking?"). Not the kind of employer *I* would want to work for. To put it bluntly, you are speaking from ignorance. Not everyone works for the government. In the real world, employment is at will. There is a short list of reasons for which someone cannot be dismissed. Outside of that, its fair game. Gautam's case is a bit unusual, because he has such a high profile job. However, when someone is looking for work, they don't need a question mark by their name. That is usually enough to get someone in the discard pile. > Second, it would not make any difference if I would put such messages on a > website, because those messages are already a matter of public record (they > are available from at least two on-line archives). You know better than that. Its like saying that it makes no difference, given that a needle exists in a haystack in the state of Kansas, that someone offers a service to fetch the needle for someone and place it on their desk. After all, it was in an accessable place. There are billions upon billions of bytes of information on the www. To set things up so that negative information is selected when someone's name is typed in a search engine is not the same as it being buried in near 100,000 messages of one of hundreds of thousands of mailing lists and newsgroups. You aren't stupid. You know that. Why play games to deny reality? Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
