I Speak of Dreams

When Is It Permissible To Publish A Private Person's Email? What's the Most Efficient Way to Fight Smears?

Tim Russo (Blogger Interrupted) and I disagree on whether a private individual's email should be posted, without the individual's consent, on a blog. 

Russo twice interviewed a woman who previously appeared in a brief television film clip about Ohioans' views on Obama, and subsequently published her email.  I expressed reservations, which prompted a subsequent post from Russo, in which he wrote: 

Such hatemongers, like Joy, thrive in an environment where they get to spread their lies without fear of being exposed as liars.  That’s why she talked to Channel 19.  She, like most Americans, is used to media being a one way conversation, in which you can spout your crap with complete certainty that it won’t come back at you... .

Not anymore.

And then Russo repeats the woman's email address and encourages his readers to "write to Joy and continue to correct her lies".  He further plans to publish all recipients of the chain emails.  And thus I have two problems with his position on publishing email addresses.

To recap:

1. Russo's publishing a woman's email, which she gave him in the course of an interview, and encouraging his readers to write her.  My problem with that?  She didn't email him, but repeated her thoughts on a video interview that he sought out.
2. Russo, and his colleague Eric Vessels of Plunderbund, are publishing not only the senders of smear emails, but the recipients, too. My problem with that?  Russo and Vessels are painting all the recipients as equally complicit in spreading the smears.  If I had a dollar for all the loony emails I've received (on autism, on political issues far and wide, on dodgy urban myths) -- well, I'd be rich.  But I can't think of one I've agreed with.

What do you think?  When is it ethically correct to broadcast a person's private information?  Is it different when someone is circulating untruths and lies? 

The whole story came about as a way of fighting smears.  So my question is, what's the best way to fight smears? 

Below the fold, the back story.

Next Time You See A Kid Behaving Oddly, Remember This

Via my pal Squid's Think Before Judging,  go read Susan Ettinger's An open letter to parents, from THAT mom

Or maybe you’ll be in line behind me at that next grocery store, or on that next plane when something frightens or upsets him. If you are, I hope you’ll think about this. I hope you’ll suspend judgment as my son, like every child, learns to cope with strong and sometimes frightening emotions. And, more importantly, I hope you’ll encourage your friends and teach your children to do the same.   

Boy do I fall down on that one, sometimes.

Update March 8, 2010. Following a vile attack on Shannon, her son, and the rest of her family at a blog I will not name or link to, Shannon has given me permission to post this. It is hardly a secret that Squid is Shannon Rosa.  Shannon Rosa is an autism advocate not only for her son and her family, but for all parents of children with autism and all people with autism.  Read her blog at  BlogHer: Shannon Rosa's Blog

I Guarantee You It Isn't A Gay Issue, It's A Mayo-Marketing Issue

I thought this UK ad was rather cute -- the mayo is so good, so authentically New-York-Deli, that it magically transforms a UK mum into a stereotypical New York deli counterman.

Predictably, Bill O'Reilly says, EEWWWW! The GAAAAAAYS!  but his co-commenters, Jane Hall and Bernard Goldberg, both say, "pish-tosh, it's just a funny ad, juxtaposing a typical middle-class British family with the the mom-turned-into-deli-guy."  Goldberg goes so far as to tell O'Reilly that he's nuts for framing it as a "gay thing".

Again predictably, Heinz has pulled the ad "in response to complaints" and the American Family Association wants folk to write letters of protest to Heinz US.  

Mombian has the last word.

AFA’s Randy Sharp told CNN the ad was “an attempt to advance the homosexual lifestyle in the United Kingdom.” Yep, that lifestyle of making sandwiches for our kids is clearly a threat to civilization.

Wynford Dore Stiffs Creditors in UK; Seems to Shift to Franchise Business Model

Via Holford Watch and BrainDuck, I learned that on June 20, the UK paper The Sun reported that Wynford Dore purchased the assets of two  DDAT (UK) Limited and Camden Holdings Limited, which together owned the Dore treatment facilities in the UK.  However, the purchase was limited to the firms' assets, not liabilities.

That means staff owed thousands of pounds in wages and parents who paid more than £2,000 for the controversial course are likely to be left out of pocket.

From reading Wynford Dore's undated letter (possibly published June 20, 2008; Download Wynford200608.pdf ) two things seem clear: the business model was always predicated on having the UK government subsidize or fund entirely the cost of treatment:

[I]t makes me all the more determined to make sure that it [the Dore "technology] reaches everybody that needs it as quickly as possible.

So how are we going to do that?  Clearly we are not able to reach everyone ourselves  ‐  this probably won’t happen until the Government takes responsibility for providing it in every school and for every adult. 

The second point of clarity is that Wynford Dore is going to move to a sort of franchising model:

So, just to summarise, we will not be re‐opening the majority of the original Dore Centres, but we will be developing relationships with local partners who will focus on their community and provide the Dore technology.  Our plan is to open as many as are necessary of these local partnerships as soon as possible.

I feel the way the folks at Holford Watch do:

While Wynford Dore is apparently under no legal obligation to pay the creditors of Dore what they are owed, we very much hope that he has the integrity to do so: in particular, we hope that he repays the staff and clients who have been left out of pocket when Dore companies went into administration.

There is no evidence that the Dore "technology" is effective in improving participants' reading skills.

Really Hazy Day

The smoke from all the fires around California has reduced visibility to less than 5 miles (estimated).  Translation: I can't see the Bay.

AT & T Broadband Acting Like Dial-Up

I don't know what's going on -- first I get error messages, now seconds go by while sites load, etc.

Today is National Call-In Day to Support the ADA Amendments Act of 2008

The text below is adapted from an action alert from the National MS Society and an action alert from The Council of Parent Attorneys & Advocates (COPAA): http://www.copaa.org

Join disability advocates from across the country today for a National Call-In Day urging your Representative to support H.R. 3195, the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (also sometimes called the ADA Restoration Act).

H.R. 3195 is very important because it will restore employment rights under the ADA and make clear that the same language applies to Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.

H.R. 3195 will amend the ADA and Section 504 to ensure that the rights of adults and children with disabilities are protected.  For many persons with disabilities , 504 is as important as the ADA, as it impacts children in school with disabilities.

Call 1-800-828-0498 to contact the Capitol Switchboard, who will connect you with your Representative's office.

Talking Points Below the fold, and additional information from The Council of Parent Attorneys & Advocates (COPAA): http://www.copaa.org

Great News on the Seidel Subpoena Front: Shoemaker Sanctioned

We all know the meaning of "ambulance-chasing lawyer".  Well, there's a sub-species: lawyers who foment false vaccine-injury claims.  Clifford Shoemaker is a prime example of the sub-species, as Kathleen Seidel has so ably documented.

You will recall the furore on behalf of Kathleen Seidel, when Shoemaker issued an alarming subpoena for Seidel's records.

The New Hampshire U.S. District Court sanctioned Shoemaker for the subpoena

Clifford J. Shoemaker’s action is an abuse of legal process, a waste of judicial resources and an unnecessary waste of the time and expense to the purported deponent.

The Clerk of Court is directed to forward a certified copy of this order, the motion to quash, the show cause order, and the response of Shoemaker and Seidel to the appropriate professional conduct committee of the Virginia State Bar in order that it may be made aware of Clifford J. Shoemaker’s conduct and so that those authorities may take whatever action they deem appropriate.

Good news, indeed.

Kathleen was assisted by the Citizen Media Law Project

Parents of Children with Autism: Emily Wants to Hear From You

Here's the post: A life less ordinary?: Mainstreaming: your experience.

I'm putting together a journalistic report on mainstreaming and autism, and I'm interested in your input. If you'd like, please tell me about your experiences, understanding of the law, opinion about its application, anything that is related to the subject of mainstreaming and autism.

You can

1. Email Emily at daisymayfattypants at yahoo and then dot and com.
2. Leave a comment at this post: Mainstreaming: Your Experience

D.C. Sessions: Handy Guide to the "Way of the Holy Warrior"

I need handy aides memoire lists like this one, from a comment at : Respectful Insolence: EpiWonk shoots and scores: Kirby admits his error.  The writer is D. C. Sessions:

Orac, I believe you may recall my regular description of the Way of the Holy Warrior:

• If you disagree with me, you must not have heard the Message (ignorant)
• If you disagree with me but clearly know the Message, you must be incapable of understanding it (incompetent)
• If you disagree with me but clearly understand the Message, you must have chosen to oppose the Truth (evil)

Bottom line: anyone who disagrees with me must be ignorant, incompetent, or evil.