[soc.women] Proposed lawsuit: rights vs. rights

rdh@sun.uucp (Robert Hartman) (07/18/88)

In article <6272@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> sethg@athena.mit.edu (Seth Gordon) writes:
>No, net.perverts, I don't want to see *those* briefs, I mean...
>
>If MES files this lawsuit, I would appreciate it if he[*], or some
>neutral party (e.g., Berkeley's netnews admin) posts a copy of whatever
>legal paraphenalia gets filed, so that I (and all other interested
>netters) can file friend-of-the-court briefs on it. ...

I believe that the difference between MES's claim and that of the lawyer
had to do with the fact that the Judge's refusal to address her properly
was interfering with the lawyer's practice of her profession.  He had no
right to do that.

If Mark's postings, or reactions to same, were critical to his profession or
livelihood, I believe Mark would have a case.  But since this forum is not
primarily professional, and since Mark often introduces and continues the
topics or lines of discussion in which the deprecatory remarks that upset
him are made, I don't see much of a case.

Mark has a legal right to be called what he likes.  On the other hand, others
have a right to speak freely.  I don't believe that Mark's right outweighs the
rights of everyone else to the extent that, in the absence of a clear threat
of tangible harm to him or his professional standing, he can enjoin others
from calling him what _they_ like.

If anyone says: "I will never hire Mark unless I can call him 'her', then I
think Mark might have a leg to stand on wrt that person.  But if people say:
"I don't like what Mark says because she's crazy," I think they are entitled
to express their opinion, especially when this is said in response to something
that Mark has said.

Since Mark himself is in the habit of citing individual posters for approbrium,
I doubt very much if he'd find much support for his position in court in any
defamation suit brought for remarks made on the net.

On the other hand, if Mark insists on suing backbones, even frivolously, then
that may induce some or all of them to simply witdraw from the net.  But the
upshot of that would be that Mark would no longer have this forum in which to
discharge his anger and upset.  And who is to say that Mark's anger and upset
isn't justified?

If posting the things he does affords Mark some relief, I should think that the
rest of us could be a bit more graceful about how we react to him.

-bob.

NUAPPLE@NDSUVM1.BITNET (M. G. Stinnett) (07/19/88)

My name is M. G. Stinnett.
Full name:  Marion Gordon Stinnett
Sex: Male, genetically and preferentially

(for those who wonder, I was named for my grandfather, Marion Marshall
Stinnett, who usually went by M. M., for reasons of his own.)

Now that we've established that for all the net to see, I relate the following:

When I graduated high school, Johnson & Johnson kindly sent me a free
sample of their O.B. tampons.  Presumably, they bought a list and choose
all the feminine looking names for this treatment.

If I claim permanent damage to my psyche for this incident, does anyone
think I have grounds for a, say, $10.57 million lawsuit against good
ol' J&J?

M. G. Stinnett   ...NUAPPLE@NDSUVM1
Opinions are like ....
and this is mine alone