Questions have risen on the ethics of effecting a books credibility by eliciting negative reviews as a form of protest.
In the online world there are new possibilities for human kindness and human trickery. A new question arises now: if you believe a seller is selling a fraudulent item you believe threatens your rights, how do you protest on their doorstep — as is the right of assembly in the constitution. A place where the people will see you protesting and see your issue– not just you sending a private letter to the place of your complaint– a concept our framers well understood, being that your complaint would likely be filed away in the trash.
If Mr. Griesbach as an agent of the government/author in the Steven Avery case is going to hide his form of false facts in a bookstore, then all devices of the bookstore are fair game to expose the true facts because their would be no other method to protest the government’s activity. I believe the framer would agree. That is my position.
All persons who reviews the book, whether they read it or not are effected by a new deception of the state — that a “True Crime Book” is being put out by a government agent of the county that has the most to gain by Avery’s conviction.And then bears false evidence. While the government would be forced to pull such a book and correct it, in this case, they feel immune because they call it a novel. It sets a standard. Where they can once again say oh he’s guilty, so what does it matter.
There is no argument to this, or any possible law suit and they know it. The law suit would be against him and the publisher, Manitowoc county and the State.
It might be hard to understand on first blush, but look at it in the form of constitutional law – while they have now stretched the right of free speech as a government agent by calling him a true crime novelist, then so too would the people be able to call themselves reviewers to protest the governmen
Consider if Walmart wrote a book, and I mean Walmart the person-hood that comes from incorporation.
Lets say they wrote a book and in one paragraph they said they paid their employees the highest wages of any company in America. And lets say you worked there and knew this was not true and felt they were doing this to compromise you credibility and the ability to fight Walmart for better wages – since the public would assume that the Walmarts book had been fact checked it had to be true and you were the liar when asking for more money.
Afraid that the public would believe this lie, you review the book and tell people that the contents are not true and tell the public what they really pay. Since a review is an evaluation of a publication, you have now given your evaluation.
The fact that you have not read the entire book is irrelevant to your interest in the book. In fact what your review of the product is saying is that the the book is not legitimate enough to read to get the true facts anyway. And since you can prove your statement your course is true.
Most people assume that a book published by a prosecutor and certainly the ABA would be fact checked, so their is no way that most people would think there would be major factual errors in the book in question. So if the publisher and writer won’t do it, who will? The people. It is the peoples duty and right to warn other people since the government won’t. This is a fundamental right – to assemble and peacefully protest. And in the online world, this is how it has to be done because it is the only available space to do so. The equivalent of the front door or entrance.