While I think I disagree pretty strongly with the idea CEA CH should be disbanded, I would like to see an updated post from the team on what the community should and should not expect from them, with the caveat that they may be somewhat limited in what they can say legally about their scope.
Correct me if I’m wrong but I believe CEA was operating without in-house legal counsel until about a year ago. This was while engaging in many situations that could have easily led to a defamation suit should they have investigated someone sufficiently resourced and litigious. I think it makes sense their risk tolerance will have shifted while EVF is under Charity Commission investigation post-FTX and with the hiring of attorneys who are making risk assessments and recommendations across programs.
The issue for me is less “are they doing everything I’d like them to do” and more “does the community have appropriate expectations for them,” which is in keeping with the general idea EA projects should make their scopes transparent.
Whether or not CEA/EV had in-house counsel, I’d like to think they had an ability to access legal advice. If not, that seems like a poorly thought out setup.
I agree it makes sense for EV to have a lower risk tolerance in light of the Charity Commission investigation. However, I’m making the following assumptions (it would be great if a lawyer could opine on whether they are accurate):
There are simple steps CH could have taken that would carry very little risk of a defamation suit. For instance, I find it hard to believe CH would be liable if they’d issued a public statement along the lines of “Alice and Chloe report XYZ about Nonlinear; Nonlinear disputes these claims. CH is not publicly picking a side but wants to make people aware of the dispute.” Maybe Alice and Chloe would have objected to that kind of statement, but it seems like it wouldn’t have material defamation risk (though again, I’m not a lawyer).
Inaction by CH could also carry legal risk. For example, if CH hears credible complaints against an org that is still allowed to come to EAG (an event run by CH’s CEA colleagues), and then someone joins that org at EAG and subsequently suffers the same treatment that CH was aware of, I imagine CEA/CV could in some cases have liability if that person wanted to sue.
First, CEA definitely have access to legal counsel.
Second, I don’t think these issues are that relevant, after reading Ben’s posts.
Regardless of legal risk, the reasons for not making claims public are clear -
(A) It took Ben hundreds of hours to feel confident and clear enough to make a useful public statement while also balancing the potential harms to Alice and Chloe. This is not uncommon in such situations and I think people should not expect CH to be able to do this in most cases.
(B) CEA is not in charge of Nonlinear or most other EA orgs. Just like Ben tried to be responsible for behavior in his offices and ended up down a rabbit hole, CEA tries to be responsible for behavior at their events, and has to choose which rabbit holes to go down. As Ben has said, they are not the EA police.
I agree it would be good to be clear about what jobs they are not doing, but think it would absolutely be worse to have no people in EA paid to work on similar issues rather than 2-3 people who still cannot do all of the work people might ask of them.
I find it hard to believe CH would be liable if they’d issued a public statement along the lines of “Alice and Chloe report XYZ about Nonlinear; Nonlinear disputes these claims. CH is not publicly picking a side but wants to make people aware of the dispute.”
In that example, what would CH be adding relative to Alice and Chloe making the public statement themselves? For example, if the idea is that people will give the report greater weight because it comes via CH and people know that CH wouldn’t host a report like this if they didn’t give it some credence, then that sounds (not a lawyer) potentially libelous, especially with how strict the UK is in this area.
If initial due diligence conducted by an independent third party didn’t uncover obvious evidence about which side is correct, IMO that’s very helpful info for the broader community and it really seems like there should be a way of expressing that in a way that doesn’t introduce legal liability.
I would like to see an updated post from the team on what the community should and should not expect from them, with the caveat that they may be somewhat limited in what they can say legally about their scope.
Agree this would be helpful. In addition to clarifying what community expectations should be, I’d like to know whether the Nonlinear affair will be included either or both of the internal and external reviews that are (were?) being conducted. And if so, would that inclusion have taken place if Ben hadn’t published his post?
While I think I disagree pretty strongly with the idea CEA CH should be disbanded, I would like to see an updated post from the team on what the community should and should not expect from them, with the caveat that they may be somewhat limited in what they can say legally about their scope.
Correct me if I’m wrong but I believe CEA was operating without in-house legal counsel until about a year ago. This was while engaging in many situations that could have easily led to a defamation suit should they have investigated someone sufficiently resourced and litigious. I think it makes sense their risk tolerance will have shifted while EVF is under Charity Commission investigation post-FTX and with the hiring of attorneys who are making risk assessments and recommendations across programs.
The issue for me is less “are they doing everything I’d like them to do” and more “does the community have appropriate expectations for them,” which is in keeping with the general idea EA projects should make their scopes transparent.
Whether or not CEA/EV had in-house counsel, I’d like to think they had an ability to access legal advice. If not, that seems like a poorly thought out setup.
I agree it makes sense for EV to have a lower risk tolerance in light of the Charity Commission investigation. However, I’m making the following assumptions (it would be great if a lawyer could opine on whether they are accurate):
There are simple steps CH could have taken that would carry very little risk of a defamation suit. For instance, I find it hard to believe CH would be liable if they’d issued a public statement along the lines of “Alice and Chloe report XYZ about Nonlinear; Nonlinear disputes these claims. CH is not publicly picking a side but wants to make people aware of the dispute.” Maybe Alice and Chloe would have objected to that kind of statement, but it seems like it wouldn’t have material defamation risk (though again, I’m not a lawyer).
Inaction by CH could also carry legal risk. For example, if CH hears credible complaints against an org that is still allowed to come to EAG (an event run by CH’s CEA colleagues), and then someone joins that org at EAG and subsequently suffers the same treatment that CH was aware of, I imagine CEA/CV could in some cases have liability if that person wanted to sue.
First, CEA definitely have access to legal counsel.
Second, I don’t think these issues are that relevant, after reading Ben’s posts.
Regardless of legal risk, the reasons for not making claims public are clear -
(A) It took Ben hundreds of hours to feel confident and clear enough to make a useful public statement while also balancing the potential harms to Alice and Chloe. This is not uncommon in such situations and I think people should not expect CH to be able to do this in most cases.
(B) CEA is not in charge of Nonlinear or most other EA orgs. Just like Ben tried to be responsible for behavior in his offices and ended up down a rabbit hole, CEA tries to be responsible for behavior at their events, and has to choose which rabbit holes to go down. As Ben has said, they are not the EA police.
I agree it would be good to be clear about what jobs they are not doing, but think it would absolutely be worse to have no people in EA paid to work on similar issues rather than 2-3 people who still cannot do all of the work people might ask of them.
In that example, what would CH be adding relative to Alice and Chloe making the public statement themselves? For example, if the idea is that people will give the report greater weight because it comes via CH and people know that CH wouldn’t host a report like this if they didn’t give it some credence, then that sounds (not a lawyer) potentially libelous, especially with how strict the UK is in this area.
(Disclosure: married to a CH team member)
If initial due diligence conducted by an independent third party didn’t uncover obvious evidence about which side is correct, IMO that’s very helpful info for the broader community and it really seems like there should be a way of expressing that in a way that doesn’t introduce legal liability.
Agree this would be helpful. In addition to clarifying what community expectations should be, I’d like to know whether the Nonlinear affair will be included either or both of the internal and external reviews that are (were?) being conducted. And if so, would that inclusion have taken place if Ben hadn’t published his post?