Re: [Leica] Freedom of expression and responsibility

["Bryan Caldwell" <bcaldwell@softcom.net>]

As one of the resident attorneys here (ducking . . . <g> ), I need to point
out that the First Amendment doesn't apply to this list. There are many
members who are not contributing from the United States, and, even in the
U.S., the First Amendment protects against government regulation of speech -
not the negative responses of others. As long as the government is not
regulating the content of the LUG, the First Amendment does not come in to
play.

Bryan

- ----- Original Message -----
From: Erwin Puts <imxputs@knoware.nl>
To: <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
Sent: Monday, May 31, 1999 1:44 AM
Subject: [Leica] Freedom of expression and responsibility


> Recently one contributor to this list seems to be under the impression
that
> some members of this list are opposed to expression of opinions or
> presenatation of factual  information that are critical or negative about
> Leica manufacturing quality,  current management practices, future product
> strategy or you name it. And feel the need to invoke the first amandment
to
> defend the right to say whatever they deem necessary.
> I feel inclined to propose that any person on this list who thinks (s)he
> needs any defense to express any view about any topic that even slightly
> tangents the Leica world, has not grasped the essence of this list and/or
> the fabric between its many contributors.
> On the other hand freedom of speech has a necessary corollary and that is
> responsibility for what is being stated or opiniated.
> In the scientific/technical/journalistic world where I roam about, anybody
> can express any thought, even the wildest guess is acceptable and
> tolerated. But if some person makes erroneous or unproven
> statements,produces illogical reasoning or draws conclusions based on
shaky
> evidence, then anybody can question these opinions or statements.
> In fact one can ignore the disputed statements ( a most sensible stance)
or
> one can bring evidence or reasoning to the contrary.
> If on this list somebody's statements or views are questioned or
challenged
> or ignored, then this is not an act of repression by the socalled "board"
> (a non-entity in fact), it is just the logical and entirely natural
> consequence of the free speech principle. Anyone may formulate wrong or
> illresearched statements/opinions, but anyone else may say that this or
> that opinion/fact is wrong or illresearched or just plain stupid. That is
> also part of the free speech principle.
> I am a very firm believer in that most elegant procedure called scientific
> reasoning, where content prevails above the individual person who made
> available the content. Solid fact finding by  methodological inquiry,
> subsequent reasoning by logical laws and carefully formulated conclusions
> based on accepted facts are the basis of progress and insight.
> Science and technology do progress because there is a common body of
> knowledge that all practitioners adhere to.
> To assume that because of a faulty pressure plate Leica quality in general
> has withered away, that the current Leica management consists of bean
> counters throwing away the quality standards established by the Leitz
> family (if that would be a true fact) is a shaky if not wrong conclusion.
> One is entitled to have this view. One is also entitled to dismiss it. Be
> careful: the view is dismissed, not the person who has this opinion.
>
> Erwin