Don't worry; we've got so much to do on Thursday that we're not going to spend too much time on Ronson. I have a longer blog planned for when we actually finish the book, though, so heads up.
This Thursday's assignment is, again, on the ethics of the chapters. Two questions:
* You may not have heard before of the EU's "right to be forgotten" idea and Google's compliance with it. To what do degree do you agree with the ability to have your records wiped from the Internet? Think about it in comparison to Michael Fertik's requirements on page 220 - that top paragraph has a whole list of people he refuses to help with his business to rehab their image. Do you agree with his list? Are there things you think one should be allowed to bury, and things that should stay on your "permanent record," so to speak, any time a prospective employer (or potential significant other!) does a search?
* The "expert witness" chapter is another one that feels a little weird. Fortunately, it's very short. You need to know, in that court transcript at the end, that in British English, "pants" means "underwear." (I know that transcript was, for me, heartbreaking to read.) Do you think the ethics of shaming in a courtroom in this way different from doing it in a public forum? It's perfectly legal for a lawyer to do this, but how ethical is it, and how does it relate to a lawyer's ethical requirement to help their client to the best of their abilities?
No comments:
Post a Comment