Talk:Rindos v Hardwick: Difference between revisions
m Signing comment by Gil Hardwick - "" |
Gil Hardwick (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
Apart from the issue addressed here being thoroughly dated, almost twenty years old now, if it is going to be discussed here at all its full complexity needs to be elaborated. Rather than the continuing diatribe against Mr Hardwick, who is in fact a student in good standing at the University of Western Australia, whoever wishes to participate in adding to the page might perhaps contact him to discuss any issues they might have in a reasonable and professional manner. |
Apart from the issue addressed here being thoroughly dated, almost twenty years old now, if it is going to be discussed here at all its full complexity needs to be elaborated. Rather than the continuing diatribe against Mr Hardwick, who is in fact a student in good standing at the University of Western Australia, whoever wishes to participate in adding to the page might perhaps contact him to discuss any issues they might have in a reasonable and professional manner. |
||
Finally, the matter in itself is not important. It is trivial in the extreme; silliness, to borrow from lawyers involved in the case, which should never have come to trial. Its implications have already been discussed at length in "legal circles" and in government, long ago. Again, Dr Rindos himself might |
Finally, the matter in itself is not important. It is trivial in the extreme; silliness, to borrow from lawyers involved in the case, which should never have come to trial. Its implications have already been discussed at length in "legal circles" and in government, long ago. Again, Dr Rindos himself might have sat and discussed any issues he had at the time with the University of Western Australia, with his colleagues, with his alienated wife and children, and not least his lover; the reason he was here in Australia at all. Had he the courage and integrity to do so none of this would have eventuated. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Gil Hardwick|Gil Hardwick]] ([[User talk:Gil Hardwick|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Gil Hardwick|contribs]]) 02:52, 6 March 2010 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
||
Revision as of 02:54, 6 March 2010
Okay, have tried my best to provide an impartial presentation of the facts of the case, plus additional material related to those involved in the case. I hope I satisfy your crieteria. This is an important case, as researchig the Web shows, there is much information out there on the implications of Rindos v Hardwick, and anyone is welcome to edit the page if they feel it is unfairly targetting someone. Also, there is I do not doubt plenty of information people might like to add to the implications of the case, which is of importance to legal circles, and the rules regulating internet postings and defamation.
Reply:
There is substantial reason to argue that fine selectivity of "information" posted to persuade readers that a particular point of view should prevail, has nothing whatsoever to do with the empirical facts of the big wide world out here. Nothing on the Internet, for all its promise, in any way represents the real world, only ever small, biased representations of it.
Especially when real living people are being named, there is an ethical dimension to be considered, and a duty of care toward those whose lives and reputations are being impinged. That can only be done firstly by having all of the facts correct, and secondly by representing those facts in a manner that does justice to the reality.
Apart from the issue addressed here being thoroughly dated, almost twenty years old now, if it is going to be discussed here at all its full complexity needs to be elaborated. Rather than the continuing diatribe against Mr Hardwick, who is in fact a student in good standing at the University of Western Australia, whoever wishes to participate in adding to the page might perhaps contact him to discuss any issues they might have in a reasonable and professional manner.
Finally, the matter in itself is not important. It is trivial in the extreme; silliness, to borrow from lawyers involved in the case, which should never have come to trial. Its implications have already been discussed at length in "legal circles" and in government, long ago. Again, Dr Rindos himself might have sat and discussed any issues he had at the time with the University of Western Australia, with his colleagues, with his alienated wife and children, and not least his lover; the reason he was here in Australia at all. Had he the courage and integrity to do so none of this would have eventuated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gil Hardwick (talk • contribs) 02:52, 6 March 2010 (UTC)