Their code of ethics seems strict and admirable.
I disagree. I don't find it admirable to ridicule just for its own sake. Do you? If their ethics are so "strict" then why have they posted personal information, which is totally inappropriate at best and totally irrelevant at the least? Not to mention in violation of SI's terms of use (as sometimes administered). I'm not familiar with you and, in fact, had never heard of you before you posted on this thread. So, obviously, we've been travelling in different areas of SI. So I have to assume, hopefully correctly, that you have simply missed what hasn't been examples of strict and admirable ethics from that group.
And the incident you describe glowingly is totally unknown to me. So, no, I don't recall it.
But a pivotal point is whether the factuality of one particular published document can be a cause of action without including other documents in the same group. In this instance, the purported company did not exist. In others, the purported properties (such as mines, patents, software) or deals and contracts referred to did not exist.
I understand your reasoning, meaning I can see how that makes sense to you. However, I believe you are mixing apples and oranges. Omit purported properties, deals, etc. Look solely at the companies. The others exist. One does not.
If Business Week officially takes notice of content at all, on the grounds that they could suffer some loss based on the content, they may be exposing themselves to a larger liability than they originally contemplated. It may not ultimately serve their interests to win this case.
It doesn't seem to be a matter of BW "taking notice" of content. It does seem to be a matter of the person or entity warranting to BW that the content is factual.
There is dissenting opinion on that however.
Message 9239249
Message 9241810 |
