If the event was billed as public, and everyone who came
expected that it
was a public event, then, as the article
says,
"Presumably,
Luntz would have had to secure a
separate agreement from each of the attendees
at his Penn
talk in advance in order to be able to claim he’d been
wronged
based on a promise of anonymity."
So many times, people expect
that if they make a
pronouncement from a podium without full discussion of the
issue at hand, then everybody in the room is bound by their
decision. It ain't
necessarily so. They have flunked due
diligence, and as the student Abbi points
out:
“I have been accused of harming the future of
discourse at
Penn,” he told me. “If anything, I’d think I
would have helped it. Because if
[there are] politicians or
public figures who don’t want to speak openly, who
fear they
are at risk if their words are being recorded by people who
want to
hear them, then good riddance. We don’t need those
people at our campus. We
need people who are going to
advance the discussion.”
IMNSHO,
Abbi contributed to the common good by recording the
public speaker at
Penn.
Think back to how you felt when some character in a movie or
book is
discussing a top secret matter that affects the fate of the
world in a public
place? Didn't you shudder at their
stupidity, especially when a spy from the
bad guys is hiding
behind the potted palm? It's just like
that.
---
Userfriendly on WGA server outage:
When you're chained to an oar you don't think you should go down when the galley
sinks ? [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
