Points to Ponder:
Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat. [Sun Tzu]
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
On the Subject of Potential Financial Penalties For Libelous Public Conduct:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
Having posted material on integrity, basic public and private ethics, and the building of one's character before{1} it seems appropriate to note something additional in light of some circumstances that your host has been privy to in recent weeks.
The reason for this posting is that there are certain parties who have taken a stance that is viewed by us as contradictory in its essence. They would assert that someone who engages in unrepentant libelous behaviour of public and semi-public figures in a fashion that bears false witness against their character should somehow be spared any financial repercussions on the basis of "not wanting to hurt their livelihood" or something of an equivalent nature. This is a position not only that is taken by those who seem to want to defend such persons at all possible costs (read: certain oligarchs) but even some critics who while going after such persons on principle stop short of advocating actions that may "hurt their livelihood" when a good portion of their livelihood is from public speaking, writing books, etc.
Now let me note here that I am neither condoning or condemning any actions of the sort so noted above in what I am saying here but only enunciating a general principle that seems to me to be of reasonable import. And that principle in a nutshell is this:
--Those who rely on a public profile to make a living who use that platform to libel others deserve any repercussions they get in the area of financial hardships as a result of their conduct. PERIOD.
For they should think of such things before the fact and recognize that those whose reputations are smeared by anything that is not of their own doing{2} are justified in seeking compensation. And if that compensation comes at the expense of the offender's livelihood, so be it.
Public figures have a responsibility to think of their family and anyone else who could possibly be hurt by the actions they take, the statements they make, etc if it is possible that such could affect their livelihood. If they are not willing to do this, then they have no grounds for complaint if others seek to have them deprived of income as a result of the actions they take and the statements they make. It is that simple really.
Notes:
{1} Among other subject matter pertaining to these matters in some fashion or another. (To note a few of them in brief, there are the subjects of how to dialogue, how to identify and avoid a number of basic fallacies of argumentation both in actuality, outlining many of the flaws in various presumed "methodologies" of argumentation, how to cultivate the skills needed for effective reasoning and logic, the importance of vetting the sources one uses, etc.)
{2} I say "anything that is not their own doing" because if what is raised is a correct description of what happened objectively speaking, then that is a horse of a different colour altogether. (I plan to write on these matters in the coming months to distinguish between objective manifestation and subjective intention -a distinction that a lot of people fail to make and one that in my mind is of no small importance.)
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
Having posted material on integrity, basic public and private ethics, and the building of one's character before{1} it seems appropriate to note something additional in light of some circumstances that your host has been privy to in recent weeks.
The reason for this posting is that there are certain parties who have taken a stance that is viewed by us as contradictory in its essence. They would assert that someone who engages in unrepentant libelous behaviour of public and semi-public figures in a fashion that bears false witness against their character should somehow be spared any financial repercussions on the basis of "not wanting to hurt their livelihood" or something of an equivalent nature. This is a position not only that is taken by those who seem to want to defend such persons at all possible costs (read: certain oligarchs) but even some critics who while going after such persons on principle stop short of advocating actions that may "hurt their livelihood" when a good portion of their livelihood is from public speaking, writing books, etc.
Now let me note here that I am neither condoning or condemning any actions of the sort so noted above in what I am saying here but only enunciating a general principle that seems to me to be of reasonable import. And that principle in a nutshell is this:
--Those who rely on a public profile to make a living who use that platform to libel others deserve any repercussions they get in the area of financial hardships as a result of their conduct. PERIOD.
For they should think of such things before the fact and recognize that those whose reputations are smeared by anything that is not of their own doing{2} are justified in seeking compensation. And if that compensation comes at the expense of the offender's livelihood, so be it.
Public figures have a responsibility to think of their family and anyone else who could possibly be hurt by the actions they take, the statements they make, etc if it is possible that such could affect their livelihood. If they are not willing to do this, then they have no grounds for complaint if others seek to have them deprived of income as a result of the actions they take and the statements they make. It is that simple really.
Notes:
{1} Among other subject matter pertaining to these matters in some fashion or another. (To note a few of them in brief, there are the subjects of how to dialogue, how to identify and avoid a number of basic fallacies of argumentation both in actuality, outlining many of the flaws in various presumed "methodologies" of argumentation, how to cultivate the skills needed for effective reasoning and logic, the importance of vetting the sources one uses, etc.)
{2} I say "anything that is not their own doing" because if what is raised is a correct description of what happened objectively speaking, then that is a horse of a different colour altogether. (I plan to write on these matters in the coming months to distinguish between objective manifestation and subjective intention -a distinction that a lot of people fail to make and one that in my mind is of no small importance.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)