Re: [atlarge-discuss] list confrontation(s)

["James S. Tyre" <jstyre@jstyre.com>]

At 03:52 PM 6/9/2003 +1200, Joop Teernstra wrote:
> At 02:23 p.m. 9/06/2003, James S. Tyre wrote:
>
>
>
> <nit picks gratefully accepted>
>
> > In your 4a, I disagree with the notion that someone need only say "false" 
> > or "please retract" to put the burden on the original poster, who would 
> > face possible consequences if the actions you describe are not taken.  As 
> > the one saying "false" or "please retract" presumably knows why the 
> > original post is false or should be retracted, that person should be 
> > required to make an initial showing, not just a bare statement, before 
> > the initial poster should be required to do anything.
> I thought of just reproducing the offensive sentence and then stating that 
> it was false and should be retracted was enough.
> The burden of proof should  remain with the maker of the statement and the 
> victim should not be required to do more of an initial showing than 
> reproducing the statement and ask "prove it or retract it".
>
> You are most welcome to refine that rule, though.

Your new requirement of quoting the specific (supposedly) offensive 
language of course is a good one, but I don't think it is enough.  To put 
this in perspective, I'm really thinking more about the possibility of 
abuse by those who seek to disrupt (surely not me).  For example, in your 
email which started this thread, you said

> Yvonne asked for rules.

It's a pretty innocuous statement, but I do not specifically recall her 
saying it.  I attribute that to my imperfect memory, not to any deliberate 
or inadvertent misstatement by you, but suppose my intent was to 
disrupt.  Even with your new addition, I need only write:

"Prove that Yvonne asked for rules or retract the statement."

Under your formulation, you now have to prove that she did ask for 
rules.  If I was in your shoes, likely I would consider the demand unworthy 
of a response; yet, the absence of a response by you could lead to 
repercussions under your proposed rules.

At a minimum, for the challenge to "count", I should be required to say 
something along the lines of:

"Prove that Yvonne asked for rules or retract the statement.  I have 
reviewed the archives carefully, and find no statement by her to that effect."

[BTW, I just now read David Farrar's post on this thread.  He makes good 
points, but I'm tired, so I am going to limit my response to what I had in 
mind before he posted.]

So:

Your initial 4a formulation was:

> a. When a false statement is made, each member who knows otherwise has the 
> right to challenge the statement with the comment FALSE or PLEASE RETRACT.

I would suggest changing it to something like (I really am tired, don't 
take this as gospel  '-)

"a.  When an allegedly false statement is made, each member who knows 
otherwise has the right to challenge the statement with the comment FALSE 
or PLEASE RETRACT.  However, the member being challenged may ignore the 
challenge without fear of repercussion unless the challenging member quotes 
the exact statement being challenged and states the basis on which the 
challenging member knows the statement to be false."





--------------------------------------------------------------------
James S. Tyre                               mailto:jstyre@jstyre.com
Law Offices of James S. Tyre          310-839-4114/310-839-4602(fax)
10736 Jefferson Blvd., #512               Culver City, CA 90230-4969
Co-founder, The Censorware Project             http://censorware.net


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de