TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
> I did not get offended by it. I said I had no argument
> with your feelings or opinions.
Then you argued that Kevin had a baseless argument that could subject him to
legal liability. Kevin's opinions about guilds were not a baseless argument
and he has no risk of legal liability from having an opinion, unless Canada
does not have an equivalent to America's right of free speech. Cite even
one US or Canadian law or mode of legal recourse that you think a guild
could have against Kevin.
> If now you will read
> what I really wrote instead of what you want it to
> read, you will see that I said in so many words I was
> not writing to castigate you. I don't know about you
> but I'm not angry or upset now, and I wasn't then.
But you did castigate him when you criticized Kevin as being slanderous.
Saying that what you are doing is not what you intend to do does not mean
that you did not do the thing.
> However, it still seems to me that you did accuse the
> guild of unethical conspiracy. That being the case, my
> worry remains. You really have made a public
> accusation of wrongdoing against some people, albeit a
> different group of people than I thought at first. And
> that could be a cause for possible concern about legal
> liability. Personally, I hope you get away with it. I
> don't like the idea of someone getting into legal
> trouble because of a post on this board, but I fear
> that it could happen.
> My intention, as I explicitly mentioned, was not to
> take you to task for a perceived slight of any
> relative. You may not wish to believe it, but my post
> was written in concern. As I wrote, my feeling was "Ye
> gods, does this guy know how much trouble he could get
> into over those words?" Nothing more.
Kevin should not get in trouble for slandering a guild because 1) he only
offered opinion and 2) the guild is a class of people and not a person.
Here's the irony Keith, if *you* told somebody that Kevin slanders people
(as you are stating in this public forum), somebody believed your comment as
a fact and not an opinion, and that statement was heard or received by at
least one other person, then you could face legal liability for slander from
Kevin because you have named a person and you have make false statement of
fact about that specific person that was publicized. Funny, huh?
I'm not an attorney, so if you have a legal concern, talk to an attorney,
but I do know a little bit about free speech and slander. If you can find a
law or a legal cause of action, Keith, that would put Kevin at risk for
legal liability, then show me. Off-list probably, but I don't think it
matters because I doubt you'll find anything. Remember the facts, Kevin is
offering opinions about a group and he is not stating false facts about a
Create HTML or Microsoft Word content and convert to Help file formats or
printed documentation. Features include support for Windows Vista & 2007
Microsoft Office, team authoring, plus more. http://www.DocToHelp.com/TechwrlList
True single source, conditional content, PDF export, modular help.
Help & Manual is the most powerful authoring tool for technical
documentation. Boost your productivity! http://www.helpandmanual.com
You are currently subscribed to TECHWR-L as archive -at- web -dot- techwr-l -dot- com -dot-