Re: 9i New Features E-book

From: Daniel Morgan <damorgan_at_x.washington.edu>
Date: Tue, 08 Jun 2004 22:20:50 -0700
Message-ID: <1086758464.287743@yasure>

Don Burleson wrote:

>>Just so you know ... in the United States freedom of speech protects
>>you if you express a personal opinion about someone in a public forum
>>provided your statement is not an incitement to violence or a
>>reference to criminal behavior.

>
>
> Hi Daniel,
>
> As they say, the 1st Ammendment does not allow you to scream "fire" in
> a crowded theater. You are quite correct about personal opinion, but
> this protection does not extend to statemenmts of fact. here is a
> great link on the subject:
>
> http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/part7.htm
>
> FYI, this is the standard for Libel and Defamation in the USA:
>
> • The statements are false;
> • The statements "were made maliciously and intentionally with full
> knowledge of their falsity or in complete and reckless disregard of
> their truth or falsity, for the purpose of injuring and destroying a
> personal and professional reputation";
> • The Defendant "acted with actual malice."
>
>
> Let's say, for example, that someone were to publish the following
> about you, using their podium as an Oracle "expert" and status as an
> employee of Oracle Corporation. In additiona to publishing the
> statements below, assume that they e-mailed the statements to your
> clients, business associates and employers:
>
> "Daniel Morgan peddles non- and misleading information . . . It
> is, frankly, a disgrace, and I make no apologies whatsoever for
> calling it tough."
>
> "be warned about Daniel Morgan, because his advice is frequently
> technically complete gibberish."
>
> "I'll just keep quietly pointing out what a fraud Daniel Morgan is
> anytime he pops up here."
>
> As you can see, these are NOT personal opinions; they are statements
> of fact, they are false, and by their tone, designed to assault your
> professional reputation.
>
>
> BTW, English Common Law is totally different than USA law. In the
> USA, the defandant must prove that their statements are true. In Oz
> and the UK, the defandant is put on-trial, to prove that the
> statements are false.
>
> Remember, the Brits have no First Ammendment rights. That's why the
> British tabloids are free to publish all kinds of falsehoods as if
> they were fact, without fear of retribution from those they damage.
>
>
>
>
>
> Daniel Morgan <damorgan_at_x.washington.edu> wrote in message news:<1086495920.834064_at_yasure>...
>

>>Howard J. Rogers wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Even worse is the tactic, employed by one, which runs like this "If you
>>>criticise my technical knowledge, I will contact *your employers* and
>>>threaten *them* with a law suit. See how long you remain employed after
>>>that". Fortunately, every employer I've heard of subjected to that kind of
>>>approach says "Get lost, you obvious weirdo". But that the approach is made
>>>in the first place indicates "badness" of the first order.
>>>
>>>Best regards,
>>>HJR
>>
>>Just so you know ... in the United States freedom of speech protects
>>you if you express a personal opinion about someone in a public forum
>>provided your statement is not an incitement to violence or a
>>reference to criminal behavior.
>>
>>On the other hand ... calling one's employer and trying to get them
>>fired ... or calling firms they contract to and trying to get them
>>to breach a contract is actionable and very large settlements have
>>been awarded.
>>
>>People living in glass houses should refrain from throwing stones.

I spent a few years in law school Don ... you missed the most important part of the actual application of the law in the U.S.

You must be able to PROVE financial damages to be awarded compensation. The number of these suits successfully waged each year is a very small number. The number successfully waged against persons in other countries ... surely you jest.

But if you want to make a few dollars off of this I have a suggestion. I'll get a lecture hall at the University of Washington and let the two of you hold a debate (provided you both go through a metal detector before going on stage). The Puget Sound Oracle Users Group will cover the cost your air fare and hotel room. But we get to keep 80% of the proceeds from the ticket sales. ;-)

If knowingly making a false statement was actionable ... I'd have every member of congress answering subpoenas right now!

-- 
Daniel Morgan
http://www.outreach.washington.edu/ext/certificates/oad/oad_crs.asp
http://www.outreach.washington.edu/ext/certificates/aoa/aoa_crs.asp
damorgan_at_x.washington.edu
(replace 'x' with a 'u' to reply)

Received on Wed Jun 09 2004 - 00:20:50 CDT