Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site spp2.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!trwrb!trwspp!spp2!jhull
From: jhull@spp2.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.politics,net.misc,net.motss
Subject: Re: Re: Corrupting youth con't
Message-ID: <222@spp2.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 5-Nov-84 22:08:18 EST
Article-I.D.: spp2.222
Posted: Mon Nov  5 22:08:18 1984
Date-Received: Thu, 8-Nov-84 00:48:36 EST
References: <4953@duke.UUCP> <1063@bbncca.ARPA>
Organization: TRW, Redondo Beach  CA
Lines: 23
Xref: sdcsvax net.politics:5049 net.misc:6202 net.motss:1184

> So, I accept Charlie's general points about the law; but I think he
> overreacted.  I also think he's somewhat callous ethically (as I am
> dense legally?), & tends toward thinking that if something isn't a 
> matter of law, it has little moral relevance.
> 
> 
> 					Ron Rizzo
As an otherwise uninvolved observer, I think Ron Rizzo also
overreacted.  Furthermore, I think that, having stated a position, Mr.
Rizzo is unwilling to admit that he was wrong.  

The ethics of the situation depend almost entirely on whether or not 
the meeting was public.  If it was, then anything said at the meeting,
including the names of all attendees, is a legally and ethically a
matter of public record and anybody has the right to use that
information in any way not specifically prohibited by law.  If the
meeting was a private meeting, then the ethical implications are not
so clear-cut.

Further exposition would require more knowledge of the particulars than I
have.

				Jeff Hull