Re: Nonukes--right to free speech

[rkathren@tricity.wsu.edu (Ron L. Kathren)]

Even Todd Maxwell and Ron Kathren have a right to publish what is clearly
erroneous information!!!!  In the US, that right is protected by the First
Amendment.  And, I cherish that right.  Certainly as Justice Holmes said,
the First Amendment does not give us license to yell "Fire" ion a crowded
theater (unless of course there is a fire or other compelling public benefit
to doing so).  But it does permit us to express our views, and to even use
patently false or selected data to support those views; the politicians do
it all the time.

Slander, incidentally, refers to the spoken word; libel, to defamation in
writing.  There are laws that regulate slander and libel, which are a far
cry from publishing erroneous information or one's personal beliefs
regarding radiation bioeffects.  Believing and advocating that the earth is
flat or that the government covered up the space aliens in Area 51 may be
damaging to the scientific community, and even to an individual scientist
but according to my legal advisor, there is absolutely no basis for a lawsuit.  

We should try to educate where we can, especially to those who have not yet
formed hard and unchangeable opinions. 

With wishes to all Radsafers for a Happy Holiday Season and a great 1998,

Ron Kathren



  
At 05:40 PM 12/23/97 -0600, Todd Maxwell wrote:
>
>However, it is very important to remember that people have a right to their
>opinions and to publish even what is clearly erroneous information, even
>though we personally find it disturbing.  Thus, the flat earthers have just
>as much right to expound their opinions, erroneous as they clearly may be,
>as those who believe the more conventional wisdom.
>
>I do not believe this is entirely true.  One does not have a right to
>publish information which is clearly erroneous.  I believe there are laws
>against slander.  I also believe it is illegal to yell "fire" in crowded
>places.  Both of these examples apply to the given discussion.
>
>In the former case, if the radiation safety community, or a given
>institution, could prove that they have been personnally damaged by these
>incorrect statements I would think that they could win financial
>compensation in a court of law.
>
>If the justification behind the latter statement is that people can be
>physically injured by the panic caused by unsubstantiated, intentional lies,
>criminal charges could be brought against people erroneously yelling
>"Radiation--bad!".
>
>Of course the affected party would have to be able to prove that the
>statements were false and that damage did occur because of them.
>
>Anyone know if Johnny Cochrane is available?
>
>Of course, I could be wrong...
>
>t
>
>
>
>Todd Maxwell, RRPT
>The Scripps Research Institute
>Environmental Health and Safety
>10550 North Torrey Pines Road
>La Jolla, Calif. 92037
>toddmax@scripps.edu
>
>