A lot of people are discussing why the community health team isn’t doing more or why more people don’t go to them, but it seems to me that it is (mostly?) because their powers are extremely limited. They can ban people from events that they sponsor or they can inform others about situations. Both of these options might be desired by some victims of harassment or assault but those actions are also extremely limited in scope. They can’t ban people from conferences they don’t sponsor, they can’t fire people who they do not directly employ, they can’t ban people from private events, and they obviously can’t take any legal action outside of saying “hey, have you thought about going to the police about this?” The majority of EA-related activity is outside the direct jurisdiction of CEA. So it seems to me very expected that most victims will not find it worthwhile to go to them for reasons that are completely unrelated to how competently they handle these situations.
I directionally agree with you. However, they do have a few other levers. For example, local EA groups can ban people based on information from CH. Grantmakers can also ask CH for consultation about people they hear concerning grapevine rumors about and outsource this side of investigations to them.
Some of this refers to what I refer to as “mandate” in my earlier shortform that I linked.
I agree that they can’t make many decisions about private events, take legal action, or fire people they do not directly employ.
And I think even that has to be done carefully to manage legal risk—EVF has significant assets in a notoriously pro-plaintiff jurisdiction for libel/slander suits. (I’m naming the legal entity as CEA has no legal existence.)
I wonder if it would be worth spinning off Community Health into its own org, to decouple it from those assets and put it in a more favorable legal jurisdiction?
Could also help it be more of a trusted neutral party.
Possibly. You can sue anyone anywhere—the question is whether a court that can actually do anything to you will enforce the foreign judgment. US courts are very skeptical toward UK libel/slander judgments in general because the UK courts do not apply standards required by the US Constitution. However, one would have to look at whether they would be more willing to enforce where the plaintiff actually lives in the UK and is not a “limited-purpose public figure” and/or where the judgment was for something like tortious interference with business relations. Dealing with foreign lawsuits can be dicey—often you are faced with the choice of defaulting and defending against enforcement in your home jurisdiction, or defending in the foreign country and accepting the court’s jurisdiction.
So the upshot is that an independent Community Health would probably still have to consider the jurisdiction in which the person being reported lives.
A lot of people are discussing why the community health team isn’t doing more or why more people don’t go to them, but it seems to me that it is (mostly?) because their powers are extremely limited. They can ban people from events that they sponsor or they can inform others about situations. Both of these options might be desired by some victims of harassment or assault but those actions are also extremely limited in scope. They can’t ban people from conferences they don’t sponsor, they can’t fire people who they do not directly employ, they can’t ban people from private events, and they obviously can’t take any legal action outside of saying “hey, have you thought about going to the police about this?” The majority of EA-related activity is outside the direct jurisdiction of CEA. So it seems to me very expected that most victims will not find it worthwhile to go to them for reasons that are completely unrelated to how competently they handle these situations.
I directionally agree with you. However, they do have a few other levers. For example, local EA groups can ban people based on information from CH. Grantmakers can also ask CH for consultation about people they hear concerning grapevine rumors about and outsource this side of investigations to them.
Some of this refers to what I refer to as “mandate” in my earlier shortform that I linked.
I agree that they can’t make many decisions about private events, take legal action, or fire people they do not directly employ.
And I think even that has to be done carefully to manage legal risk—EVF has significant assets in a notoriously pro-plaintiff jurisdiction for libel/slander suits. (I’m naming the legal entity as CEA has no legal existence.)
I wonder if it would be worth spinning off Community Health into its own org, to decouple it from those assets and put it in a more favorable legal jurisdiction?
Could also help it be more of a trusted neutral party.
Possibly. You can sue anyone anywhere—the question is whether a court that can actually do anything to you will enforce the foreign judgment. US courts are very skeptical toward UK libel/slander judgments in general because the UK courts do not apply standards required by the US Constitution. However, one would have to look at whether they would be more willing to enforce where the plaintiff actually lives in the UK and is not a “limited-purpose public figure” and/or where the judgment was for something like tortious interference with business relations. Dealing with foreign lawsuits can be dicey—often you are faced with the choice of defaulting and defending against enforcement in your home jurisdiction, or defending in the foreign country and accepting the court’s jurisdiction.
So the upshot is that an independent Community Health would probably still have to consider the jurisdiction in which the person being reported lives.
If they moved from the UK to the US, would that help defend against libel/slander lawsuits from Americans?
Likely so, although I am not a UK lawyer.