We recognize however that anyone who takes the role of an “insiders” or “whistleblowers”, if you will, can and should expect their share of criticism. At Psychjourney we expect and welcome all reasonable criticism. It is the only way we can improve our service to both consumers and practitioners.
We will address in a responsible manner all reasonable criticism of the works on this website(s). If you or anyone has a criticism and wish to share it with us, we welcome it and if there is substance to it we will make all appropriate modifications and corrections.
Even if we do not agree that changes/corrections are in order if the criticism is well reasoned we will post the criticism prominently on our website if the writer is willing to go on record and have their name used. We do reserve the right, however, not to print criticism or comments that is not supported by any evidence, anonymous gossip and hearsay or ad hominem attacks on any individuals, organizations or groups.
The Psychjourney websites are breaking new ground in many ways. We are asking questions in new ways and examining issues that only emerged as the result of the internet and the proliferation of consumers and practitioners using the internet to seek information and share their knowledge and experience. With this new technology come new questions, problems and dilemmas.
Among them are:
Are emails “intellectual property” in the same sense as writing an article, book, song, poetry etc.?
If someone sends another or others an unsolicited email, who owns it, the sender of the receiver in terms of who can release it to a third party?
Are emails to discussion groups a.k.a. posts to be considered publications and copyrighted or are they public utterances just like getting up on a soap box in a public park and making a speech to any and all in earshot?
Is permission required from the author of an email or post in order to comment on it or repeat it after it may have been stated to a group of hundreds or thousands of individuals on the Internet?
And particularly if some of these posts to discussion groups listservs call for the encouragement of or condoning behavior that might be in violation of some law, ethical code or professional standard what is the greater responsibility of an investigative reporter? Do we have a greater responsibility to protect the reputation of the sender or to educate the public on a matter that may affect them in some serious and profound ways?
These are among the questions that any investigative reporter must struggle with daily. At Psychjourney we have attempted to address these issues in the following ways:
- We will err on the side of caution and are willing to concede the possibility that in some cases (rare as it may be) it may be possible that someone’s email or post to a discussion group could contain some intellectual property that should be protected. If someone, for example, is expressing some novel and unique approach to mental health delivery that may in fact be protected by copyright laws. And we will respect that and quote only with permissions. It is also common curtsey and fairness and in keeping with the concept of “Netiquette”.
- However we believe that copyright laws, common curtsey and Netiquette ARE NOT INTENDED to protect someone from either doing or advocating illegal acts or violations of professional standards be they ethical or technical. For example, if some one is using the Internet to call for or encourage an illegal boycott of managed care companies, no formal or informal code of silence can be justified.
- Also, if someone were to disseminate the intellectual property of others without permission it would be disingenuous of them to claim their intellectual property has been violated if someone called them on it and exposed them for copyright violations.
- There is nothing new or novel about antitrust activity it has been going on since the 1890s and was then and is now illegal. It is all the more ironic for someone to claim that their intellectual property was violated if they were exposed to violate the intellectual property of others on a regular basis.
However, in an attempt to find the balance between reporting on information vital for the public to know and protecting the privacy of colleagues in all our websites we have:
- Wherever possible made every attempt to contact the poster and offer then the opportunity to clarify, amend respond or rebut. In the case of discussion group owners we have offered standing invitations to respond or refute.
- In addition, in order to avoid any personal embarrassment to any one individual, we take only small excerpts when we believed it was absolutely necessary to give meaning to an article or podcast. And at least to date, we have quoted anomalously anything that may cause embarrassment to a professional. We believe this is totally consistent with “Fair Use” which permits using another work even without permission when reporting or commentary. It is not our intention to cause any embarrassment to individuals but to get people to think and hopefully promote social change with in the mental health professions.
If someone believes they recognize their works we will be willing to work with them in a satisfactory resolution however. Again if they wish they have the option of identifying their work by letting us know that they were the original source of the Fair Use quote. If it turns out that that is correct. They may clarify, amend, retract respond or rebut on the record.
Concerns regarding this or any other issue can be addressed by an email to johnr@psychjourney.com or a recorded phone call to (214) 615-6044--- 8460. long distance rates may apply. Anonymous calls will not be placed on the website.
