Mark wrote:
>
> My personal view (and I think that generally accepted) is that each
> contribution exists as a separate text in this respect and that there is no
> editorial copyright existing in the body of work representing the list as a
> whole. I certainly wouldn't claim any, since the messages are unmoderated.
>
> So, I guess it is worth noting that contributors should regard their
> contributions as published texts. The sender can reasonably be held
> accountable for the content (libel/slander etc.) and any subsequent user is
> accountable for the use of that text.
I wonder if perhaps it is important to clarify who is the "publisher" of
these "published texts". If the "publisher" is not the individual who wrote
the text, then the "publisher" can presumably also be held to be complicit
in the content of what is "published" through its perpetration? Certainly I
am aware that publishers in the print field are at pains to make sure that
the content of what they publish will not incur any form of legal action.
But it is my impression that they are rather more rigorous about this when
it comes to the possibility of being sued by large corporations than they
are when it comes to private actions taken out by individuals.
The implications of this worry me in the context of what this list is
supposed to be for, because surely such practice reinforces an individualist
perspective on the law among other things. That is, conglomerates,
institutions and their representatives can absolve themselves of
responsibility for the perpetration and incitement of discriminatory actions
by locating the responsibility in the individual. Further, it is only the
rich and famous who can afford to pursue e.g. libel actions since, at least
in the UK, such actions are not covered by legal aid nor are they covered by
anti-discrimination law unless the individual can prove that they were
libelled because they are disabled. The outcome is that it is only the rich
and famous who have the opportunity to defend their reputations, thus
drawing further attention to themselves, and the attempted trashing of the
reputations of the rest of us becomes a socially legitimated, sometimes
disabling activity. What's accountable about that? More importantly, what's
that got to do with 'social models of disability'?
Mairian
________________End of message______________________
Archives and tools for the Disability-Research Discussion List
are now located at:
www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/disability-research.html
You can JOIN or LEAVE the list from this web page.
|