12-31-2007, 02:00 AM
[quote MacMagus]> I do believe students are entitled to their opinion. However,
> what about my rights as an individual and professional, not
> to be defamed?
Truth negates defamation. If someone says/writes something untruthful and damaging about you in a public forum, you have recourse to the law. That you have not alleged any such thing happening suggests that you're not complaining about defamation per se, but are simply upset that people have the ability to air their (sometimes negative) opinions about you in public.
Actually, I think both things are true. In this case, I probably *would* have recourse to the law-- I did read at least one thing which was outright untrue-- but would I ever exercise it? Doubtful (not worth the hassle or money). But I'm also not necessarily in love with the "right" to air negative opinions in an anonymous way on a message board or website. (Yes, it's a "right", but... again, since it's anonymous, you have no way to respond to it or deal with it other than a lawsuit, apparently.) It's not just about students and profs, either... how about cyberbullying, for example? Are you honestly telling me that you think it's OK for someone to write something awful about you on their website or blog? (Sure, they can do it... but just because they *can*, means they *should*?)
[quote MacMagus]Obviously, there are things that might be hurtful and allegations that would prompt me to legal action.
But I think that your focus is on lawful behavior that you'd prefer to outlaw.
No, not to outlaw -- rather, to regulate. Your right to say nasty things about me (for example) does not abridge my right to either respond to the things you've said, or to know who it is who's said them... inherent fairness says I have the right to confront my accuser. Otherwise, you're just talking about gossip... except gossip which potentially damages peoples' reputations.
[quote MacMagus]If what was said about me was true or was a considered opinion then I'd take it under consideration and get on with my life.
True, as would I.
[quote MacMagus]I buy into the First Amendment. I think that it's important. And if I'm so much of a schmuck that people feel the need to declare it to the world then I probably need that brought to my attention.
Hmmm... I'm not sure what you're getting at here, since I've just made the point that I too believe in the First Amendment. I just don't believe in an *absolute* right to free speech. And I'm making the point that apparently, a number of dentists feel the same way as I do, to the extent of determining the raters' identities.
Edit: oh, I forgot to include this. The point was just made to me, that with these "ratings" websites, there is absolutely *no* guarantee that anything which is written is actually written by anyone in a position to fairly judge the person being rated. Some websites take some steps to try to prevent this from happening, but these steps are apparently easily circumvented.
> what about my rights as an individual and professional, not
> to be defamed?
Truth negates defamation. If someone says/writes something untruthful and damaging about you in a public forum, you have recourse to the law. That you have not alleged any such thing happening suggests that you're not complaining about defamation per se, but are simply upset that people have the ability to air their (sometimes negative) opinions about you in public.
Actually, I think both things are true. In this case, I probably *would* have recourse to the law-- I did read at least one thing which was outright untrue-- but would I ever exercise it? Doubtful (not worth the hassle or money). But I'm also not necessarily in love with the "right" to air negative opinions in an anonymous way on a message board or website. (Yes, it's a "right", but... again, since it's anonymous, you have no way to respond to it or deal with it other than a lawsuit, apparently.) It's not just about students and profs, either... how about cyberbullying, for example? Are you honestly telling me that you think it's OK for someone to write something awful about you on their website or blog? (Sure, they can do it... but just because they *can*, means they *should*?)
[quote MacMagus]Obviously, there are things that might be hurtful and allegations that would prompt me to legal action.
But I think that your focus is on lawful behavior that you'd prefer to outlaw.
No, not to outlaw -- rather, to regulate. Your right to say nasty things about me (for example) does not abridge my right to either respond to the things you've said, or to know who it is who's said them... inherent fairness says I have the right to confront my accuser. Otherwise, you're just talking about gossip... except gossip which potentially damages peoples' reputations.
[quote MacMagus]If what was said about me was true or was a considered opinion then I'd take it under consideration and get on with my life.
True, as would I.

[quote MacMagus]I buy into the First Amendment. I think that it's important. And if I'm so much of a schmuck that people feel the need to declare it to the world then I probably need that brought to my attention.
Hmmm... I'm not sure what you're getting at here, since I've just made the point that I too believe in the First Amendment. I just don't believe in an *absolute* right to free speech. And I'm making the point that apparently, a number of dentists feel the same way as I do, to the extent of determining the raters' identities.
Edit: oh, I forgot to include this. The point was just made to me, that with these "ratings" websites, there is absolutely *no* guarantee that anything which is written is actually written by anyone in a position to fairly judge the person being rated. Some websites take some steps to try to prevent this from happening, but these steps are apparently easily circumvented.