Mr. Atboth, who smells unfortunately of stale cigars, has indicated that he may be pursued or probably so by an angry person from Berkeley, that possibly most likely being the anonymous Stephen Pearcy, who is married to brillant dark haired temptress and also lawyer mrs. Pearcy.
He asks in many and several ways about ethics and legality of whatever it is that he has been doing on his blog, in most particular this post here: http://atthebackofthehill.blogspot.com/2009/06/stephen-pearcy-and-joseph-anderson-at.html
Is there an ethical breach, he asks, and of considerably less importance, is it actionable?
You are asking me about ethics? In my capacity of lawyer? I am bowled over.
You yourself are fit to answer that more than me, as I assume that collection agents and repo wallahs have more ethical boundaries that they dare not cross. Law and ethics in practice do not overlap so much, the ven diagram is extremely lean.
Whether what you said about the lean and lovely mister Pearcy and the hungry unwashable mister Anderson is actionable, I believe you are safe. I assume that you ran it by counsel before publication date, precautionarily, and gathered their addresses as a measure.
If not, no great or particular matter. Freedom of speech.
And truth is a great safeguard.
But then evenso, ethical. Very well. Was it ethical of the Berkeley Fellowship of Unitarian Universalists (hereafter called BFUU) to welcome mister Gilad Atzmon to perform at a sham-e-ghazall or wht the soever it was benefit for terror apologistes and Hamas supporters? Was it ethical of them to let their hall and reputations be fiercely ripped by having a hate-filled bigot of the most doubtfull political extreme playing sweet musics in their inner sanctum? Is the promotion of the destruction of Israel by any means but mostly jihadi really and truly what the Berkeley First Unitarian Universalists are to be henceforth known for?
Do these looks like honest faces to you? Do they even have alibis? Where they not there in their various mass to open the gate and let him in? And did they in anyway object to having a green jihadi banner waved outside their temple?
How does this sit with the people of Berkeley, I must wonder. How does it sit?
Ethics, in my humble opinions, are not the issue here. Poncy dyed hair like a Pakistani tribal on top of head is. Despite buff musculiture of protest bigot in questions. Bad taste!