On 10 Oct 2006 16:42:08 -0700, "Louis Blair"
wrote:

Mike Murray wrote (Tue, 10 Oct 2006 12:20:45 -0700):

And who decides what material "demeans women and children"?

If we are talking about actions taken by the board (primarily
suggesting that the ethics committee or the delagates do
something), I guess it is the board that decides.

My point exactly.

Would a scholarly paper that claimed brain differences
between men and women rendered it more likely that
men, on the average, will perform better at mathematics,
be considered "demeaning"? Would a series of women
in funny hats and ridiculous clothes be considered
"demeaning"? What if a member formally complained
that she *did* find this demeaning? Is truth a sufficient
defense against something someone considers
"demeaning"?

I, of course, can not answer for the board on something
like this, but my impression is that they have in mind
more extreme items such as what appeared on Sam
Sloan's website.

I agree that's probably what they had in mind, but unfortunately, we
have no "chess supreme court" to divine the intention of the board. We
have to live with what is actually written. As an academic, you
surely must be familiar with the myriad abuses committed in the name
of regulations ostensibly protecting people from being offended.

Free speech is often abrasive, offensive and mistaken. Still beats
restriction.

Does one have to request permission from someone
commonly regarded as a public figure?

As I understand it, the picture or pictures was/were not
taken by Sam Sloan, and, although there has been talk
of Sam Sloan getting permission, no record of such
permission has been produced, and the picture-taker
denies giving such permission.

If the issue is one of copyright, then I have no complaint.

However, that doesn't appear to be what our Board's proclamation
addressed:

"...an Executive Board Member has posted on the Member's
personal web site one or more photographs of a prominent member of the
US Chess Federation, contrary to the wishes of said member".

This says EB Members cannot have pictures of "prominent" members on
personal web sites if the "prominent" members object. This says
nothing about copyright or proprietary photographs

What pompous and pretentious nonsense! If the
Board is determined to write crap like this, why not
use plain English?

What is to be expected when a lawyer is involved?

This stuff looks like it was written by a grade school civics teacher
pretending to be a lawyer. Oh, well...

Seriously though, it was not my idea to post this here
at rec.games.chess.politics, but since it has been
done, it would probably be worthwhile to add some
context: (1) Susan Polgar and Paul Truong have
been complaining about a picture or pictures used
by Sam Sloan. (2) Various people have been
pestering the board to, in some sense, distance
itself from Sam Sloan behavior.

I am in no position to know, but my guess is that the
resolution is primarily intended as an expression of
some degree of agreement with those who strongly
disapprove of a board member with Sam Sloan's
behavior.

Or gutless sniveling to avoid a lawsuit.