Ethics Scenario

[_asbestosman]

If it's any consolation (probably not), the reason I don't denounce Scratch and GoodK's besmirching of Daniel Peterson's character is because I find they are incorrigable on that point. I may as well beat my head against a brick oven . . . from the inside while it's heated to several hundred degress Celsius.

[_Yoda]

If it's any consolation (probably not), the reason I don't denounce Scratch and GoodK's besmirching of Daniel Peterson's character is because I find they are incorrigable on that point. I may as well beat my head against a brick oven . . . from the inside while it's heated to several hundred degress Celsius.

LOL! Amen!

[_Daniel Peterson]

I just don't think that two wrongs make a right.

What I did isn't even remotely comparable.

[_Ray A]

Well whaddya know. And I never revealed it.

It's all over the Internet. And posters here have often called him Eric. It would be hard to keep that secret even among three posters.

[_marg]

I had a somewhat similar ethical decision to make fairly recently. For our Blues events we sell tickets at a number of outlets. One outlet was a small store. Generally at this place I would give 20 tickets worth $20 ea and if more were needed I'd give more and take the money for the previous tickets. The owner of the store on this occasion said he couldn't pay me because some tickets hadn't cleared visa. He'd never previously mentioned visa and I knew it sounded fishy but I gave him the benefit of doubt. He eventually sold $680 worth of tickets. When it came time to collect the money after the event he said he didn't have it, that he needed it to pay off some bills which had come in, but that within a week he should get it.


The decision I had to make was whether to inform a friend who was about to sell tickets at this place, about what he'd done. The town is small, the risk is this could negatively impact the reputation of the individual and how trustworthy he is business wise. I decided he hadn't been completely truthful with me regarding excuses of visa transactions not going through and since he might not pay up and he might do the same for my friend, I felt in her best interest she needed to be told.

This is similar to what Eric has going on here. He's aware of information potentially embarrassing to the ex-bishop. The ex-bishop though was the one who committed wrongs enough to be excommunicated by the Church which is the source for the ethical values this institution is supposed to abide by. The bishop's personal choices were probably worse than what many of the kids who end up being sent to the institution for. In addition Eric knows the guy is a jerk. While in management at that institution he was one of the bad guys according to Eric (I believe). And he's still working for an affiliated organization. If any parent upon being presented with the information Eric has on this man were to find the conduct not in line with their values, and that they wouldn't want such an individual overseeing their child, and he's the sort of man that's been in management, it could be an added piece of information that ends up changing a parent's mind about the quality of care there, and sending their child. Informing the parents, allows them to make the decision whether the information is relevant to the best interests of their own child. This all assumes Eric is correct that the institution is abusive to kids causing them harm.

[_antishock8]

I haven't read through the thread, so I apologize, but you DO realize that the Internet is considered media, and that libel is a real thing? The moment you print his real name, and can't prove defamation... You're subject to libel laws.

Think about it, brother.

[_Tiktaalik]

Asbestosman has a point:

Characters on here like Scratch and Antishock8 (and perhaps GoodK) are so consistently outrageous in their claims about people with whom they disagree that I think there's a certain propensity to tune them out and ignore them. A claim by Scratch that Daniel Peterson lied about something or other is probably not going to be taken very seriously at all. It isn't that the allegation itself isn't serious, it's just that the person making it has no credibility.

I, for one, don't even read Scratch's threads because I find them uninteresting/tedious. I think that Chap probably foresaw this thread devolving into another GoodK-vs-DCP-vs-Scratch-a-thon and wished that it weren't so.

I doubt that he'd support the idea that Daniel doesn't have the right to defend himself. Of course, I wouldn't support such a claim either; I just find the personal back-and-forths to be the least interesting part of this messageboard, and I generally wish they'd go away.

[_Tiktaalik]

I haven't read through the thread, so I apologize, but you DO realize that the Internet is considered media, and that libel is a real thing? The moment you print his real name, and can't prove defamation... You're subject to libel laws.

Think about it, brother.

Excellent legal analysis. And relevant too!

[_antishock8]

I haven't read through the thread, so I apologize, but you DO realize that the Internet is considered media, and that libel is a real thing? The moment you print his real name, and can't prove defamation... You're subject to libel laws.

Think about it, brother.

Excellent legal analysis. And relevant too!

I'm sorry. You're extinct. Your opinion doesn't count.

[_GoodK]

This really is something to be marveled at. Is it just me, or we redefining "disgusting, slanderous lie" to mean "experiment" now?

Let me get this straight; Daniel C. Peterson, an ecclesiastical leader within the LDS Church, a professor at Brigham Young University, knowingly spreads filthy, slanderous lies about me on the Internet, and in retraction calls it an "experiment" and you people accept that?

To keep this in perspective, I have never, ever invented a story about Peterson from whole cloth. I mentioned Peterson's treatment of Mike Quinn, which really happened, and he justifies himself by posting a horrible series of lies that he later retracts and calls a "test."

What's worse is some people are actually playing along and commenting on the success of the "test."

I've been playing along too. Yesterday, after reading the Professor of Middle Eastern Studies' post I contacted an acquaintance, John W. Dozier, an Internet law attorney specializing in defamation cases. I'm not aware of any case law that addresses "tests" from BYU professors in relation to libel. We'll see how that goes.

I propose that from now on, it is free game to make up and say anything you want to say about Daniel C. Peterson as long as it is later recanted as an "experiment."

What the “F”.