Klarinet Archive - Posting 000320.txt from 1997/12

From: Roger Garrett <rgarrett@-----.edu>
Subj: Re: de Peyer
Date: Mon, 8 Dec 1997 20:27:06 -0500

Dan Leeson: LEESON@-----.edu wrote:

> > Bravo to who ever wrote this unsigned note. I cannot understand why this
> > group is gossiping with such negative views on a living person who might
> > even be on this list or have reports of it made to him. This sort of
> > thing borders on slander. It may not be actionable, but it is certainly
> > not professional.

Neil Leupold responded:

> Are you suggesting that the only acceptable expression of opinions
> on Klarinet, regarding another player's performance style (whether
> living or dead), must be complimentary in nature? What a boring
> and useless forum this would be if everybody were all stopped up
> in the rear, ever stifling their truth in the name of political
> correctness. I'm not talking about being rude, however, and there's
> no need for anybody to get ugly in their opinions. But even in the
> case where tact is questionable, we have to keep an open mind and
> try to relax. Klarinet -- to my mind -- is not just about the
> transmission of objective data and authoritative criteria for
> becoming a good player, teacher, or scholar. If we're willing
> to accept positive personal interaction, with ovations toward
> favorable playing and gregarious personalities, then there's a
> natural suggestion that the less-complimentary reviews and feelings
> will be equally tolerated. Take the good with the bad, or get out of
> the relationship altogether. This is no "fair weather" forum!

The discussion of clarinet performers is ok......however, discussion of
personal issues.....the person's personality away from the clarinet,
attitudes towards American's "silly" philosophy of no vibrato, negative
aspects that are not associated with the performance are unprofessional.
Does a person have a right to voice his opinion in an unprofessional
way...certainly......but at the expense of upsetting people. It is not
political correctness one should think about....it is social acceptability
- that is.....the ability to state one's opinion without attacking a
person's character. There is no necessity for this - as it should not
affect a person's opinion regarding clarinet performance.

> As for the implication of "slander", it doesn't even come close.
> Slander pertains to fact, not opinion, and the only element of fact
> which exists in the determination of somebody's personal aesthetics
> as that they know how they feel. You can't take that away from them,
> and you have no power with which to compel censorship of their opinion.
> What you do have every right to do is to say, "I disagree" and/or "I feel
> differently, and here's why."

I urge those who read Neil's definition of slander to be careful. Not
only is he legally incorrect, his suggestion that opinion can't be taken
away has been proven incorrect many times over. If someone has an opinion
that cannot be proven (yes - it deals with fact.....but an opinion without
proof is dealing with lack of facts) and it negatively impacts on another
person in a public forum, that person has a basis for legal action that
not only includes slander but defamation as well.

Roger Garrett
IWU