Not really comedy tonight, but the line was too good to pass up.

In light of recent discussions about only writing trauma when you "know" the trauma, I found this article from New York magazine particularly interesting. It's about legal superstar Larry Lessig and his surprising (because he doesn't generally do this type of law) representation of a man who says he was molested decades ago at the Boychoir School in New Jersey, where Lessig also went. As it turns out, Lessig was also a victim, but his life has turned out quite differently from his client's, which is not to say that he wasn't affected. His client draws a fascinating analogy: "Within 24 hours after [the client] told [another person] about being raped by the school’s cook, [his] mother was killed in a car accident, propelling his paranoia to imponderable heights. His daughter was in the car, too, but she 'walked out unscathed,' he says. 'And I got to thinking later it was a metaphor for molestation. Some are killed, some are scarred, some are crippled. Others walk out untouched. It all depends where you were sitting in the car.'" There are common and uncommon reactions to trauma; there's rarely a "right" reaction; and writing fiction about trauma is a minefield whether or not you survived trauma yourself.

Tomorrow night I'll be in Philly, aiming to misbehave.

From: [identity profile] iocaste212.livejournal.com


You know what's weird - I haven't looked into thelegal issues but it sounds as though they're squabbling over whether the teacher was acting within his scope of employment, and apparently, they consider it a big deal whether the teacher said he thought this would make the boys into a better choir (which is a joke).

But it seems to me that even without such evidence, he would obviously be within the scope -- it's not like going to a bar after work and getting into a fight, as the defense attorney said, because the teacher used his position to gain access to the boys, and used his authority to intimidate them and facilitate his encounters. I don't even know why this would be such a big issue.

But maybe I'm not understanding or the magazine is not being precise.

From: [identity profile] rivkat.livejournal.com


As I recall, doing things with a purpose of serving the employer is a way of acting within the scope of employment, but then there's a separate issue whether NJ law immunizes charitable employers from just employee negligence or also intentional torts. So I think Lessig may have to win both points to win. I don't think just having access to the boys is within the scope of employment, any more than embezzling money to which you have access is -- but it's been an awfully long time and most of my knowledge comes from a side issue in copyright law.
.

Links

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags