Re: Nonukes--right to free speech

[Hal Resides <hal_resides_at_corpus@smtpgate.ddrw.dla.mil>]

     Mr. Maxwell,
     
     While your proposal may a viable, albeit questionable and most 
     certainly costly, course of action, we must keep in mind that we are, 
     regrettably, dealing with appearances and perceptions (here we go with 
     the public and perceived risk thing again).  In that light, the 
     defendants would be perceived as the battered wife, and while Mr. 
     Cochrane may prevail legally, public opinion (something you can't 
     litigate) would remain unchanged.  On a personal note, though, it 
     would be nice to see "them" squirm a little trying to justify their 
     position.  Unfortunately, I believe the burden of proof would lie with 
     us.
     
     I have to agree with Mr. Chaney that, even though it will not be a 
     quick process, education and the conscientious dissemination of 
     technically correct information is the answer.  To combat the 'flat 
     earthers' out there, maybe we should foster a Christopher Columbus 
     attitude instead of looking for a Johnny Cochrane.
     
     
     Hal Resides
     DLA


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Nonukes--right to free speech 
Author:  <radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu > at SMTPGATE
Date:    12/23/97 5:40 PM



>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