Our Discussion makes news.

[Eric M. Freedman]

-For whatever it may be worth, I think there would be nothing wrong with
saying in class, "A member of the conlaw profs. list has suggested  X,
and advanced arguments A, B, and C in support of the position."  I think
that, without permission, it would be inappropriate to go beyond that -
either to attach a name to the argument (since the result will quickly
be, "Tribe's position is X") or to hand out a copy of the post. -E.

>>> Leslie Goldstein <lesl at UDEL.EDU> 08/08/00 08:44AM >>>
I wish to ask bluntly:
Is it the consensus of group members that to distribute to an
undergraduate
conlaw class a copy of a post from this list (for instance Hartnett's
interesting one on Cong.law re: "inhabitant") for purposes of
stimulating
discussion--i.e. NOT as formally researched scholarship--would be a
violation of courtesy to other members of the list?  I had been
thinking
about doing this but will refrain if consensus so dictates.
Leslie F. Goldstein, Unidel Professor of Political Science and
International Relations, Univesity of Delaware

"Eric M. Freedman" wrote:

> -I support Professor Tribe's position.  But in any event, I would
hope
> we could come to
> a consensus on this and get our journalist members to agree
> affirmatively to abide by it. -E.
>
>                        *******************
> Prof. Eric M. Freedman
> Hofstra Law School
> Hempstead, NY  11550
> LAWEMF at Hofstra.edu
> Tel. 516-463-5167
> Fax 516-463-5129
>         Home Office: Tel. 212-665-2717
>                                     Fax 212-665-2714
>                          *******************
>
> >>> Larry Tribe <larry at TRIBELAW.COM> 08/04/00 04:26PM >>>
> I sure would be troubled -- and am troubled right now by the
discussion
> in
> the Rocky Mountain News.
>
> I've assumed that the ground rules under which journalists are
invited
> to
> "listen in" on our e-conversation is that they not quote from it,
and
> certainly not attribute views to any one of us, without specific
> permission.
> If that isn't the clear understanding, I'd suggest it ought to be.
Some
> of
> us might choose not to participate in the list at all unless the
> journalists
> who are listening in affirm that understanding of the rules of this
> particular game.
>
> At the same time, I have assumed that, in teaching our students, and
> in
> handing out materials to help guide class discussion, we should feel
> free to
> refer generally to views expressed on the list, and even to say that
> Professor X of the ABC Law School has suggested that Y, where Y is
an
> (accurate) condensation/paraphrase of what X posted on the list. Is
> that the
> general view?
>
> And how do others feel about going further still and directly
quoting
> from
> someone on the list, by name, in class discussion or in materials
> handed out
> for class (which we obviously can't prevent students from
circulating
> more
> broadly)?
>
> -- Larry Tribe
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John C. Eastman [mailto:jeastman at CHAPMAN.EDU]
> Sent: Friday, August 04, 2000 3:40 PM
> To: CONLAWPROF at listserv.ucla.edu
> Subject: Our Discussion makes news.
>
> "Keith E. Whittington" wrote:
>
> (I might note that the Rocky Mountain News recently published a
rather
> amused editorial about our discussion on this list.)
>
> Complete with block quotations, I might add.  The URL is
> http://www.insidedenver.com/seebach/0730seeb.shtml
> <http://www.insidedenver.com/seebach/0730seeb.shtml> , in case
anyone
> is
> interested.  Is anyone troubled by seeing their posts to this list
in
> the
> papers?  Should we be?
> --John Eastman