Point Taken....10/5

A commenter on the Harvard Law blog brought up a point, however I don't think the court would even consider it:

September 23, 2007 at 4:42 am
Crosbie Fitch
I’m not sure anyone can be defamed by an anonymous and unknown person.

For harm to be caused by falsehood requires the falsehood to have some weight, i.e. someone’s reputation behind it.

An anonymous person has no reputation. Their arguments or assertions stand entirely upon their intrinsic merit.

Look at it the other way around: an anonymous person cannot be defamed no matter the reputation of those defaming them (because the anonymous person has no reputation).

Similarly, one could observe that a child’s defamation has far less weight than an adult’s.

Defamation is inherently inegalitarian, and rightly so.

However, pen names have been used for centuries--in some cases to disassociate the ideas from the source, rather than the other way around. In either case, the ideas have to be able to stand on their own.

I was watching 60 Minutes a while ago, and Clarence Thomas made two points that hit home: "It is always worth it to stand on principle." And, "Wrong is wrong, even if it's over a penny." The principle is the worth of the staff and of the patients. The new RIF policy is wrong. Employees are required to give notice, but the hospital doesn't? Truly amazing that no one had a copy of it prior to the sale of the health centers. The policy mysteriously comes out after the sale, but dated prior to it. You be the judge....

Speaking of which, the judge is to sign the new disclosure order Monday. Obviously we're continuing to fight it.