On the issue of these "ratings" websites...

[PeterB]

[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.

[MacMagus]

> No, not to outlaw -- rather, to regulate.

Regulate it how? To negate anonymity? To prevent people from voicing their negative opinions?

It's a slippery slope. I'd prefer legislators to stay the heck out of it.


> Are you honestly telling me that you think it's OK for someone to write something awful
> about you on their website or blog?

I try to live my life such that nobody would feel the need.


> I just don't believe in an *absolute* right to free speech.

I think that you're defining "free speech" in a unique and personal way. It's currently "free" as in "free lunch" as in there ain't no such thing.

There are already myriad restrictions on speech. And what little freedom we have was bought with the dear blood and sweat of patriots and scoundrels.

[PeterB]

[quote MacMagus]> No, not to outlaw -- rather, to regulate.

Regulate it how? To negate anonymity? To prevent people from voicing their negative opinions?
No, just to prevent or negate the ability of people to say whatever they like, without having any responsibility or repercussions to what they say.

[quote MacMagus]It's a slippery slope. I'd prefer legislators to stay the heck out of it.
"Regulate" was probably a poor choice of words on my part. I just couldn't think of anything better. What I was getting at was, if someone were to spraypaint the words, "PeterB is a @!&*%!" (substitute something colorful in there) across a bridge or something, that there ought to be some way to respond to or deal with that... erase the graffiti, charge the perpetrator with vandalism, whatever. In the case of what we've been discussing, apparently there isn't much that can be done, other than litigation.

[quote MacMagus]> Are you honestly telling me that you think it's OK for someone to write something awful
> about you on their website or blog?

I try to live my life such that nobody would feel the need.
As generally do I -- but as a prof, you are necessarily in the lives of the students, you cannot give them all As, and I guarantee you that even the best prof will receive a negative rating at one time or another... especially a student who has failed a course. Some of these students might even be vicious enough to go so far as to do something like that. And I also highly doubt that it's possible to live one's life in a way that completely avoids the possibility of something like that happening. Also, you didn't answer my original question of whether or not it's OK to do something like this. I do think the possibility of someone posting something false to their website or blog or whatever is very high, and there's no obvious way that the person it's been posted about can do much about it.

[quote MacMagus]> I just don't believe in an *absolute* right to free speech.

I think that you're defining "free speech" in a unique and personal way. It's currently "free" as in "free lunch" as in there ain't no such thing.

There are already myriad restrictions on speech. And what little freedom we have was bought with the dear blood and sweat of patriots and scoundrels.
I think speech (at least in this country) is quite free. I am defining free speech as the ability to say anything one wants, whenever one wants. Clearly we do not have free speech in that sense, nor do I believe we should. Yes, I agree that free speech does already have a number of (valid) restrictions. Again, my point is simply that people should not be allowed to say absolutely whatever they want under the veil of anonymity, and assume that they're protected.

[MacMagus]

> if someone were to spraypaint the words, "PeterB is a @!&*%!" (substitute something
> colorful in there) across a bridge...

Assuming that it's otherwise his right to decorate the bridge as he wishes? What exactly is wrong with someone writing that if it's his honest opinion of you?

Would it make a difference to you if he wrote, "David Duke is a @!&*%!" ...? Why so or why not?



> Also, you didn't answer my original question of whether or not it's OK to do something like this.

I did answer. If you feel that my answer was insufficient, I suggest that you think about it some more.



> I am defining free speech as the ability to say anything one wants, whenever one
> wants. Clearly we do not have free speech in that sense

Then please do not use it that way when you refer to "free speech."


> my point is simply that people should not be allowed to say absolutely whatever they
> want under the veil of anonymity, and assume that they're protected.

I don't think that many people think about it to such an extent. Certainly, when anonymity is assumed, many people will say things about you that they wouldn't say to your face. That can be a GOOD thing. To the extent that it can also be bad, I think that we should accept it as a necessary evil, excepting only the most extreme and perverse circumstances.

There's no way that I can see where one can stop the bad stuff without also crippling the good stuff... and frankly, I don't think there's anyone in this world competent to discern "good" from "bad" speech anyway. What might appear vile and slanderous today might be seen as vital dissent tomorrow.


> just to prevent or negate the ability of people to say whatever they like, without having any
> responsibility or repercussions to what they say.

That's a silly fantasy.

You can't just prevent people from voicing potentially hurtful opinions. That would destroy any meaningful right to dissent. 'Might as well tear up the Constitution right now.

And there are always repercussions.

Always.

God is not going to step in and stop people from hurting each other.

At least not until October 3rd, 2008 at 6:35pm EST.

[ho'ard]

[quote MacMagus]
You can't just prevent people from voicing potentially hurtful opinions
Do you think that's a fair summary of what PeterB has been trying to express?

[PeterB]

[quote MacMagus]> if someone were to spraypaint the words, "PeterB is a @!&*%!" (substitute something
> colorful in there) across a bridge...

Assuming that it's otherwise his right to decorate the bridge as he wishes? What exactly is wrong with someone writing that if it's his honest opinion of you?

Would it make a difference to you if he wrote, "David Duke is a @!&*%!" ...? Why so or why not?
I didn't assume that it was the person's right to decorate the bridge as he/she wishes. The right to make a public statement per se isn't what I'm taking issue with -- it's the right to make a publicly defamatory statement. So long as I am able to defend myself against such a statement, and there's nothing untruthful about it, I don't have a problem with it. (So to answer your second question, no, it wouldn't make any difference.)

[quote MacMagus]I did answer. If you feel that my answer was insufficient, I suggest that you think about it some more.
No, I'd say it was a non-answer.

[quote MacMagus]> I am defining free speech as the ability to say anything one wants, whenever one
> wants. Clearly we do not have free speech in that sense

Then please do not use it that way when you refer to "free speech."
Why not, if that's what it is?

[quote MacMagus]> my point is simply that people should not be allowed to say absolutely whatever they
> want under the veil of anonymity, and assume that they're protected.

I don't think that many people think about it to such an extent. Certainly, when anonymity is assumed, many people will say things about you that they wouldn't say to your face. That can be a GOOD thing. To the extent that it can also be bad, I think that we should accept it as a necessary evil, excepting only the most extreme and perverse circumstances.
Yes, that seems reasonable to me. I'd say back to this only that it is possible to give one's honest opinion without also being a total jerk, though.

[quote MacMagus]There's no way that I can see where one can stop the bad stuff without also crippling the good stuff... and frankly, I don't think there's anyone in this world competent to discern "good" from "bad" speech anyway. What might appear vile and slanderous today might be seen as vital dissent tomorrow.
True, but i think we can (mostly) agree that there are certain forms of speech which should either be limited or at the very least, moderated.

[quote MacMagus]> just to prevent or negate the ability of people to say whatever they like, without having any
> responsibility or repercussions to what they say.

That's a silly fantasy.

You can't just prevent people from voicing potentially hurtful opinions. That would destroy any meaningful right to dissent. 'Might as well tear up the Constitution right now.
That isn't what I said. I do think it's reasonable to hold people responsible, especially to what they say in print. Especially because of the nature of the internet, that things are archived indefinitely, and that they are available around the world.

[quote MacMagus]And there are always repercussions.

Always.

God is not going to step in and stop people from hurting each other.

At least not until October 3rd, 2008 at 6:35pm EST.


Not sure what relevance that has... do tell...

[MacMagus]

> True, but i think we can (mostly) agree that there are certain forms of speech which should
> either be limited or at the very least, moderated.

No. I don't agree.

I don't think that there's any form of speech that should be per se outlawed or moderated (censored).

There are rare circumstances where speech might be used to incite inappropriate violence where I would tentatively be in favor of criminal punishment.

There are circumstances where I'd agree that if a person knowingly lied in a public forum then that person should be held accountable for real damages in civil court.

But to ban or "moderate" all of the forms of speech that might be interpreted as criminal incitement or worthy of civil damages is repugnant to me and I believe that it is contrary to the needs of the citizenry both for civil society and representative government.

More to the point: You seem to be saying that stating a hurtful opinion publicly under the veil of anonymity should be outlawed. I can't agree with that.

[ho'ard]

[quote MacMagus]
More to the point: You seem to be saying that stating a hurtful opinion publicly under the veil of anonymity should be outlawed. I can't agree with that. Assuming the hurtful opinion contains untruths;
why should it be potentially punishable (a potential punishment you clearly condone above) if it's not anonymous, but protected by anonymity?

[MacMagus]

> why should it be potentially punishable (a potential punishment you clearly condone
> above) if it's not anonymous, but protected by anonymity?

Could you rephrase that? I'm not sure what you mean.

[ho'ard]

Assuming the hurtful opinion contains untruths, i.e. would create a situation of libel/slander;
why should it be potentially punishable when it's not anonymous--a potential punishment you clearly condone above, when you say:

There are rare circumstances where speech might be used to incite inappropriate violence where I would tentatively be in favor of criminal punishment.
There are circumstances where I'd agree that if a person knowingly lied in a public forum then that person should be held accountable for real damages in civil court.

but then why do you seem to be saying that it's OK for it not to be punishable if protected by anonymity?