-Caveat Lector-
Court says Loftus actions “beyond the pale” By John Thomas - Editor Emeritus The National Psychologist - Vol. 16, No. 3 May/June 2007 Pages 1 & 5. "The California Supreme Court said that actions Elizabeth Loftus, PhD,. Took to discredit a case study article describing repressed memories may be “ considered beyond the pale” and ordered a trial to consider whether those actions constitute an invasion of privacy. The court held that there is sufficient evidence that Loftus misrepresented herself to a young woman’s foster mother in order to obtain confidential and intimate details about repressed memories of alleged sexual abuse to warrant a trial on privacy invasion issues. “We believe it is important to recognize that there are at lease some types of misrepresentations that are of such an especially egregious and offensive nature – and are quite distinguishable from the types of ruses that ordinarily may be employed in gathering news – that they properly may be considered ‘beyond the pale’ . . . even when the misrepresentation is made to friends or relatives of the subject of an inquiry who are under no legal obligation not to reveal private information,” the court found in a 5 – 2 ruling. Loftus, a University of California at Irvine professor of psychology and one of the world’s leading researchers in repressed memories, has denied that she misrepresented herself during an hours-long meeting with the former foster mother....The former foster mother said that she became suspicious during the interview with Loftus and later testified that she would never have told them some of the intimate details of her foster daughter’s life if she had known Loftus misrepresented her relationship with Corwin, with whom both she and Taus had a trusting relationship. “In our view,” the court wrote, “intentionally misrepresenting oneself as an associate or colleague of a mental health professional who has a close relationship with the person about whom one is seeking information would be a particularly serious type of misrepresentation, and one significantly different from the more familiar practice of a news reporter or investigator in shading or withholding information regarding his or her motives when interviewing a potential news source.” Further, the court added, “We believe that if a trier of fact were to find Loftus engaged in the particular type of misrepresentations alleged by (the former foster mother) the conduct properly could be found ‘highly offensive’ for purposes of the intrusion-into-private-matters tort and liability could be imposed upon Loftus.” Loftus told The National Psychologist that she is pleased that the court held all but one of the allegations lodged against her by Taus have been dismissed at the trial court level under California’s 1992 Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPP) statute, which protects actions that fall within the constitutional rights of petition and free speech. Under that statute, Loftus is entitled to be reimbursed for the costs of appealing the case to the court of appeals and the state supreme court. “I’m gratified that the vast majority of claims were dismissed and the costs of defending those claims are to be reimbursed,” she said. Loftus added that if the invasion of privacy claim goes to trial she is confident she will be able to prove the allegations made by the former foster mother are untrue.” “Ot is too bad that scholars and scientists and journalists in the future may be forced to go to trial when someone falsely claims there was a misrepresentation,” Loftus said. “Journalists have long known about the dangers of ‘source remorse,’ which is why the major media filed an amicus brief on our behalf.”....Joyanna Silberg, PhD., of Baltimore, executive vice president of the Leadership Council on Child Abuse & Interpersonal Violence, said the ruling “supports the discipline of psychology by bolstering ethical and scientific research guidelines with the added authority of law.” The Leadership Council has filed an amicus brief supporting Taus. Silberg said the behavior Loftus is accused of is outside the boundaries of any acceptable research protocol. “There are ways to do scientifically acceptable research even on case studies, but not by defrauding people to gain confidential information surreptitiously,” she added.” ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com. www.ctrl.org DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://www.mail-archive.com/ctrl@listserv.aol.com/ <A HREF="http://www.mail-archive.com/ctrl@listserv.aol.com/";>ctrl</A> ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
