Re: West Wing, et. al.

[Paul lavely <lavelyp@UCLINK4.BERKELEY.EDU>]

Kai Kaletsch wrote:



>  The point I was trying to make was that the

>people, who have a vested interest in this issue and those who have invested

>a lot of time and energy in it, have a right to point out factual errors.

>

>I think people have the right to speak as individuals.



and



>

>  > No. Those who write this stuff have no obligation to get the facts

>>  right;

>

>Sorry, I was talking about Ruth's right or obligation to comment.

>



and



>I'm not looking for a remedy. I am saying that people should be able to

>point out factual errors without censure or ridicule.

>

>Kai



This is getting a little far from the original topic, but it reminded 

me of my constitutional law class final exam - so:



Censure? An expression of strong disapproval or harsh criticism. You 

believe that it is I who has tried to censure someone? Look at 

comments to and about Norm Cohen and you can see some serious censure 

at work. My comments were that perhaps there are times when a TV show 

is entertainment and not a vehicle of attempted social change.



Ridicule? To make fun of.  The following is somewhat repetitious of 

the above but  - You believe that it is I who has tried to ridicule 

someone? Look at comments to and about Norm Cohen and you can see 

some serious ridicule at work.



Lets look at a response to radsafe on this West Wing subject that I 

made on 4/5/02 to Ruth W.



>Since you are an expert on transportation, make your comments to the 

>network, make your comments to the media, make your comments to 

>governmental representatives and the public,. . . "



Ruth is an expert and has written well thought out and technically 

sound information on this transportation issue and the YM EIS on 

radsafe. I read these and found them to be informative and useful. 

Some of her comments on the EIS caused me get a copy and read it. 

Therefore, was I serious that she is an expert? Yes. Was I serious 

that it is she, and others like her, who are the very ones we need to 

address this to the decision makers, the networks, and the public? 

Yes, I plead guilty. That hardly seems like an attempt at censure.



I may be being too sensitive; however, it appears that you are 

suggesting that I have implied that people do not have a right to 

respond to or express an opinion?  May I ask for proof - show me a 

post of mine where I made that suggestion. Even my response to 

Franz's xenophobic rant (a writing that incites anger) was that he 

was BOTH wrong (which I supported) and a xenophobe (which was obvious 

from his words).



Do I believe that people have the constitutionally assured right to 

speak or write things that make them appear smart? Yes (see above 

related to Ruth). That make them look stupid and/or ignorant? They 

have that right too.



Do I have a constitutionally protected right to comment on either? 

Sure do. However, with that right comes the responsibility to stand 

behind my words and take the consequences for them. That I will also 

do. When wrong, I have corrected my information or apologized (as 

appropriate). I have never taken the pusillanimous road of refusing 

to respond to a direct question when to answer would show me to be 

wrong or rude. Others have ridden that road as if it were an 

expressway.



In conclusion, sometimes a movie or tv show ain't nothing more than 

entertainment. (stolen from "sometimes a hero ain't nothing but a 

sandwich.")



Just the myopic views of an old HP living in a world controlled by 

administrative law.



Paul Lavely <lavelyp@uclink4.berkeley.edu>

-- 

************************************************************************

You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,

send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu  Put the text "unsubscribe

radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line.

You can view the Radsafe archives at http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/