| |
|
(Found via Plasticbag).
This article in WIRED points up the tension between free speech on the one hand and liberty and safety on the other; if an allegation is irrefutable, but false - or even demonstrably untrue, but juicy enough to hang around - the publication of that allegation can destroy a life. On the other, of course, it's not desirable for the law to create a situation where, effectively, the largest wallet or the greatest political or social weight can effectively silence others.
From the article: The case traces back to a North Carolina town in 1999, where handyman Robert Smith was repairing a truck owned by attorney and art collector Ellen Batzel. Smith claimed to have overheard Batzel say she was related to Nazi Gestapo head Heinrich Himmler. He said he concluded that the European paintings he saw in her home must be stolen goods, and shared this in an e-mail he sent to the editor of the Museum Security Network, an organization that publishes information about stolen art.
Three guesses what happened next:
Without telling Smith the e-mail would be published, Ton Cremers -- the sole operator of Amsterdam-based Museum Security Network –- made minor edits, then posted Smith's e-mail to a list of about 1,000 museum directors, journalists, auction houses, gallery owners and Interpol and FBI agents.
Consequence:
Ellen Batzel says the case changed her life.
"This was a small, North Carolina mountain town -- I talked to the (district attorney) and he said 'Get a dog, get a gun, get a security system or better yet get out of town.' I sold my house and moved. I've been hurt in my professional reputation and in my private life.
There is a legal saying that hard cases make bad law - and the right to free speech has macro consequences which appear to override the rarer negative micro ones such as this.
On the other hand, there has to be a complementary culture of, or obligation to, factual reporting.
Does that make any sense? |
|
|
