>MHO, Lilly could have dealt with the issue much more easily by simply posting non-anonymous rebuttals on the same message board. Now >that would have gained my respect. Imagine an American corporation who understands the internet and how to use it, and doesn't go from one >knee-jerk reaction to another.
The problem is, that apparently these users posted confidential information about the company in their messages. What good does it do Lilly to post a reply, if these people posted Financials? I think Lilly would have just ignored it if there were no "Trade Secrets" or other confidential information in the post. That is the viewpoint of most companies. (At least that I have worked for) Ignore unless it directly damages the company or includes confidential information. Thankfully, neither of the 2 problems occured at any of these companies....
>I would say that freedom of speach also means freedom from restrictions on that speach. >(Although I would also assume that "Freedom of Speach" refers to "Freedom to express >concepts/ideas to others" as opposed to "Freedom to vocalize in any way at any time").
That is like saying that the Freedom to Own Guns means that you are not responsible for what you do with that gun. Anonymous posters that clearly violate the Laws governing Free Speech should be punished. These laws are to prevent abuses on both sides. I agree that corporate America goes to far sometimes, and with their Political and Monetary power try to impose their will, but that does not mean that a disgruntled employee should be able to post confidential information anonymously and feel that he can do this whenever he wants. There is no such thing as anonimity, and freedom has its price.
However, in both your post and the post before, the view being expressed in your example is a personal opinion. You can not be sued for airing your personal opinions. (Just to be safe, I would preface opinion comments with IMHO....) Also, in your example you bring up numbers and figures... Anyone who knows anything about statistics could tell you that you can make statistics say just about anything you want.
Why listen to the media at all? When have they truely had a clue as to what the general public really thinks. I have not seen either in print or on the TV a News subject where the media did not distort the facts and spin the information to make it more "gripping". My answer to the news media is to not buy, read, or watch news that I dont want to.... Go play Quake....escape the media blitz...live in a cave....
Slashdot Mirror
>MHO, Lilly could have dealt with the issue much more easily by simply posting non-anonymous rebuttals on the same message board. Now
>that would have gained my respect. Imagine an American corporation who understands the internet and how to use it, and doesn't go from one
>knee-jerk reaction to another.
The problem is, that apparently these users posted confidential information about the company in their messages. What good does it do Lilly to post a reply, if these people posted Financials? I think Lilly would have just ignored it if there were no "Trade Secrets" or other confidential information in the post. That is the viewpoint of most companies. (At least that I have worked for) Ignore unless it directly damages the company or includes confidential information. Thankfully, neither of the 2 problems occured at any of these companies....
>I would say that freedom of speach also means freedom from restrictions on that speach.
>(Although I would also assume that "Freedom of Speach" refers to "Freedom to express
>concepts/ideas to others" as opposed to "Freedom to vocalize in any way at any time").
That is like saying that the Freedom to Own Guns means that you are not responsible for what you do with that gun. Anonymous posters that clearly violate the Laws governing Free Speech should be punished. These laws are to prevent abuses on both sides. I agree that corporate America goes to far sometimes, and with their Political and Monetary power try to impose their will, but that does not mean that a disgruntled employee should be able to post confidential information anonymously and feel that he can do this whenever he wants. There is no such thing as anonimity, and freedom has its price.
My Favorite Warning is the DANGER HIGH VOLTAGE Stickers on Transformers sitting on Power Lines.... Common Sense in no longer Common....
However, in both your post and the post before, the view being expressed in your example is a personal opinion. You can not be sued for airing your personal opinions. (Just to be safe, I would preface opinion comments with IMHO....) Also, in your example you bring up numbers and figures... Anyone who knows anything about statistics could tell you that you can make statistics say just about anything you want.
Why listen to the media at all? When have they truely had a clue as to what the general public really thinks. I have not seen either in print or on the TV a News subject where the media did not distort the facts and spin the information to make it more "gripping". My answer to the news media is to not buy, read, or watch news that I dont want to.... Go play Quake....escape the media blitz...live in a cave....
>.. geek complex (as in a 'short person complex')
I thought this was called a Napoleon Complex...(The one where short people want to rule the world.)
"If you dont have anything important to say, just bitch and whine" -- ME