This IS a story - and deserves publication. Now, I lurk and participate to some extent on this site - and I deliver my opinion. Sometimes asked for.... sometimes just offered. Just as others do. And I read others' comments, integrate it - and sometimes take action - just as you do. If I listen to a person's opinion on a subject and do NOT do my own diligence, then I am solely responsible for the result. If I offer my opinion on a thread, here, what responsibility do I bear for what others might do as a result? A moral responsibility, certainly. Legal? Probably not, but if I slander or libel - or promote a fraud, probably.
Our friend Pluvia has a right to express opinions - biased, slanted, or otherwise self-serving. Mr. Westergaard has the same right. We, in the context of public discourse also have a right to listen to these opinions and take action if we wish. If Mr. Westergaard feels Pluvia has committed a libel, then he has a right to remedies at law. He probably even has a right to pay people and organizations for information - even personal information. (Doesn't make it right, but t happens all the time, doesn't it? Think about it) In doing this, however, he also has a responsibility to avoid libel or slander himself.
What makes this a story is whether I have a right to be anonymous on the Internet if I wish - and what offends me about the action Mr. Westergaard has taken is that he aparently believes he also has a 'right' to offer a reward for information stripping me of my anonymity. It is hard to draw any conclusion other than that this is a bald attempt to shut Mr./Ms. Pluvia up without resorting to remedies already available. If so, then I believe it is a wrong, wrong, wrong move. (If there were a case, it would seem to me that SI's records could be subpeonaed, could they not? Any lawyers out there want to shed some light on this??)
It would seem to me that the light of a public airing of this whole situation would very beneficial. Here are the questions as I see it:
1. If laws have not been broken, do people have a right to privacy in their communications with others on the Internet if they wish? My opinion: They do.
2. Do people or organizations have a right to offer public rewards for private information about people not accused of a crime? My opinion: They don't.
3. Does the public offering such as this one is by itself damage the reputation of the person involved? My opinion: yes.
Mr. Westergaard, if you want me to shut up, sue me. Otherwise, you can choose to participate in civil discourse or not. I respect your right to have opinions and offer facts as you see them. You need to respect mine. |
