Re[2]: Nonukes--right to free speech

[Ruth Weiner <rfweine@sandia.gov>]

     Guess I will weigh in.  Anyone has a right to express an opinion as 
     long as it isn't libellous.  When someone clearly expresses what is an 
     untruth, it should catch up with him or her in real time, even if it's 
     a long time.  Unfortunately, those who monger fear of radiation cannot 
     easily or readily be refuted with simple or clear evidence because 
     they are promoting fear of future events and effects; they are 
     actually promoting fear of something you can't see now.  Moreover, 
     look how long the tobacco industry got away with its various coverups. 
     We just have to keep calling it as we see it.  I suspect the fear of 
     radiation will be promoted in public forums until those who promote it 
     lose interest, or can no longer afford to promote their position.  In 
     the meantime ...
     
     Ruth Weiner
     Sandia National Labs
     Clearly my own opinion and no one else's.


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: Nonukes--right to free speech
Author:  hal_resides_at_corpus@smtpgate.ddrw.dla.mil at hubsmtp
Date:    12/24/97 9:07 AM


     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