Talk:Rindos v Hardwick

message: Okay, have tried my best to provide an impartial presentation of the facts of the case, plus additional material related to those involved in the case.  I hope I satisfy your crieteria.  This is an important case, as researchig the Web shows, there is much information out there on the implications of Rindos v Hardwick, and anyone is welcome to edit the page if they feel it is unfairly targetting someone.  Also, there is I do not doubt plenty of information people might like to add to the implications of the case, which is of importance to legal circles, and the rules regulating internet postings and defamation.
Reply:
There is substantial reason to argue that fine selectivity of "information" posted to persuade readers that a particular point of view should prevail, has nothing whatsoever to do with the empirical facts of the big wide world out here. Nothing on the Internet, for all its promise, in any way represents the real world, only ever small, biased representations of it.
Especially when real living people are being named, there is an ethical dimension to be considered, and a duty of care toward those whose lives and reputations are being impinged. That can only be done firstly by having all of the facts correct, and secondly by representing those facts in a manner that does justice to the reality.
The reason that has not been done is because the person who posted the article is none other than an old adversary Mr Noel Conway, previously of Margaret River and now I understand living in Melbourne, Victoria, after having been obliged to leave town. Mr Conway has his own axe to grind following the under-aged affair between his own daughter and a boy known to me, who shall remain nameless but who Mr Conway had arrested as part of his campaign of vitriol against all who disagree with his methods.
Mr Conway has nothing whatsoever to do with the Rindos case, and never has. His motivation for posting the article some fifteen years after the event has neither anything to do with the case itself. The matter between 1989 and 1993 involved the University of Western Australia where Mr Conway has never been a student and as far as I know has never even been on campus, choosing many years later to glean his snippets by "searching the web", and from gossip and hearsay. He is neither a lawyer but a radical political activist.
Apart from the issue addressed here being thoroughly dated, almost twenty years old now, if it is going to be discussed here at all its full complexity needs to be elaborated in a scholarly manner. Rather than Mr Conway continuing his personal diatribe against Mr Hardwick, who is in fact a student in good standing at the University of Western Australia, whoever does wish to participate in adding substantive content to the page might perhaps contact him to discuss with him any issues they have, and what documents he may be willing to provide, in a reasonable and professional manner.
Finally, the matter in itself is not important. It is trivial in the extreme; silliness, to borrow from lawyers involved in the case, which should never have come to trial. Its implications have already been discussed at length in "legal circles" and in government, long ago. Again, Dr Rindos himself might have sat and discussed any issues he had at the time with the University of Western Australia, with his own colleagues, with his alienated wife and children, and not least his lover; the reason he was here in Australia at all rather than taking up a post in the US. Had he the courage and integrity to do so none of this would have eventuated.
My considered view is that this page has no merit, encyclopaedic or otherwise, and should be deleted.Gil Hardwick (talk) 08:26, 6 March 2010 (UTC)