Posted by Lou Pilder on August 30, 2008, at 7:58:57
In reply to Lou offers his perspective-ihtshpngnhow? » Zeba, posted by Lou Pilder on August 30, 2008, at 7:19:41
> > Dinah, You said below in regard to concerns about past posts that may be uncivil or that that might be hurtful as a result of race, religion, and/or culture.
> >
> > "This site is run, and paid for, by Dr. Bob. I don't always agree with his decisions any more than anyone else does. But it's his site, and he has the ability to make the rules"
> >
> > It is true that it is his sight, but I would think that the University of Chicago would not want such posts with their name associated with them, even if they are from the past. They can be googled. Dr. Bob has at the end of the page the following:
> >
> > "Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD, dr-bob@uchicago.edu"
> >
> > So, I see this as problematic. I don't know if the University administration or faculty would approve even though "legally" they might not be liable. Still PR is important to a University Medical Center.
> >
> > This is just my two cents on the topic.
> >
> > ZEBA
>
> Friends,
> It is written here,[...posts...from the past...].
> A generally accepted meaning of {the past} is that something took place before the present. A generally accpted meaning of {present} is that what is present exists now.
> My perspective as to if there are {past posts} or {present posts} here is that if they can be seen now, then they are in the present.
> My perspective is that posts in the archives can be seen now in the present and are IMO posts that are part of the forum now.
> I used a hypothetical example of a billboard in a city that had objectionable statements on it and that a member of the group that the statements could be thought to be directed at complained to the mayor to have those statements addressed by either removing the objectionable content or posting a disclaimer next to that content that indicated that those comments do not reflect the policy of the comunity standards in some way.
> Hypothetically, one I guess could say that the billboard was from the past and constructed years ago so in that reasoning the objectionable content posted on the billboard would be left to stand. But then, hypothetically, the one objecting to the content on the billboard could say that one can still see it even though the objectionable content was posted there in the past but can be seen now.
> Then, hypothetically, the ones wanting the billboard's objectionable content to stand could say that it is not visible to all the community unless they go to that part of the city. Then the one objecting to the content on the billboard could say that community members could be searching some part of the city looking for something other than the billboard and could pass the billboard on their way to another part of the city and then see the objectionable content on the billboard in the present, even though it was put there before the present.
> There is a case here where I live where a sign was put up in a business that was defaming to a particular group of people. The owner was required to take it down as being discrimnatory under the policy of the community standard. The court did not take into consideration as to how long the sign was there or as to if other signs of the same nature would also have to be removed if the one in question was required to be removed but as to what the sign purported in relation to the community standards.
> The posting policy here is defined in the TOS here. If one would like to post here an argument that could mean that posts of the nature in question are allowed to stand, or confirm an existing argument put forth here to allow posts of the nature in question to be allowed to stand, on any basis, I could then have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
> LouFriends,
In another aspect of this discussion, there was a case where I live where a man put a sign on his car and the city orderd him to take it down. The sign read,"for sale".
It was on his car window and the car was parked on the street. The city's argument was that the sign could cause harm to people by the nature that they would see it and be distracted and perhaps cause a wreck on the street. This went to the 6th distict of appeals.
The car owner argued in part that Realtors could have signs in yards and no one wrecked their car looking at their "for sale" signs. The city could not show evidence that the sign on the car window caused anyone to get hurt and the car owner won the case.
What my perspective about this in relation to this discussion here has IMO paralles that I would like to discuss this by email.
Lou
poster:Lou Pilder
thread:403854
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20080719/msgs/849171.html