[Foundation-l] Concerns for Safety

[Nathan]

Also - I'm taking a break from Foundation-l for a bit, so please don't be
offended if I don't offer further reply to anything directed at me
specifically. I don't want to end up at the tippity top of the next top
posters list or be cited as a reason for someone unsubscribing ;)

On Fri, Mar 7, 2008 at 12:49 PM, Nathan <nawrich at gmail.com> wrote:

> You point out new *incidents* that themselves don't point up changed *
> circumstances*. The issue of images of Muhammad, in general, is not new
> and is predictable. The fact that Egypt is predominantly Muslim, despite a
> semblance of official secularity, is not new. This is my point - nothing has
> fundamentally changed about Egypt since it was selected. I don't have the
> history of the last bid selection - I assumed since no reference was at any
> point made to discussions in the bid selection process, that this particular
> issue wasn't raised as a major problem. If it was, my bad, but then its even
> harder to understand why folks say that its been completely ignored if its
> come up before.
>
> It is particularly 1L to see tort law the way you seem to and to think
> that there is an opportunity to sue hiding behind each new event. How many
> cases without extraordinary circumstances (i.e. gross negligence) can you
> name where an *organization* has been sued because it held a conference
> somewhere that was the target of an attack or other unpredictable untoward
> event? Even a parent isn't required to protect children from 100% of
> possible harm, and I think the reasonable interpretation of the duty of a
> parent is far, far away from a reasonable interpretation of the duty of the
> WMF. The legal angle is simply a non-issue designed to add supposed weight
> to your position. It does not. You should be careful not to offer an opinion
> on the law presaged by your status as a law student - if someone takes your
> view as authoritative, I'm sure you can dream up circumstances under which
> you could be sued.
>
> You have a point when you mention that Wikimania is supposed to have a
> wide draw (paraphrasing), like Wikipedia, and that excluding a number of
> people who feel unsafe to attend can be seen as a conflict with the purpose.
> There is some question over whether the Wikimania is primarily intended to
> attract regional attendees, or global attendees. I think the answer is both,
> to the extent possible. Issues on the ground of the location (on the ground,
> I sound like a politician) always exclude some people - thats inevitable. So
> maybe what we need is a number - how many people who would otherwise go are
> refusing to go to Alexandria because of the security and liberty issues? If
> its a lot of people, that would lend support to your argument and be more
> persuasive in trying to get the Wikimania moved/canceled.
>
> Nathan
>