A blog by the magazine's editors and contributors
Cathleen Kaveny May 15, 2009 - 9:24am
Some interesting resources on the man and his thought. He was very important to the development of Noonan's thought, obviously. I think Noonan and Newman are good additions to the topic raised by Peter's post below.
This is not a collection of "interesting resources" about Cardinal Newman. It is a malicious, typosquatting site, set up (only about a month ago) to catch misdirected traffic intended for the Cardinal Newman Society's site.Shame on you for promoting it.If anyone is interested in a real collection of Newman resources, try the National Institute of Newman Studies, which has built as impressive a bricks-and-mortar institution as its online resources: NINS.
I'm sorry, I don't see any problem in the sources they link to --including the National Institute for Newman Studies. As for the idea that the Cardinal Newman Society does not do justice to the thought of Cardinal Newman--well, they state that thesis quite forthrightly, and I agree with them.
The links are a fig leaf and the "thesis" is an attempt at a disclaimer--both aimed at avoiding legal liability for their infringement of the Cardinal Newman Society's marks.I don't hold any particular brief for the Cardinal Newman Society--that's why I pointed to NINS instead--but let's at least be honest about what's going on here.
Legal liability? Trademark? Sorry, I don't see it.I think their premise is that the Cardinal Newman Society does not provide an accurate depiction of the thought of Cardinal Newman. They want to correct the picture of Cardinal Newman.You ought to see the fight among Thomists about who gets Thomas right..
Why the high dudgeon? The site seemed pretty much on the up and up to me. Yeah, there's definitely a tug of war going on but I saw no attempt to mislead. FWIW, in response to a google of "Cardinal Newman Society", the .net url did not show up on the first page of results.
Nomilk --Surely you subscribe to Cardinal Newman's notion that all sides on an issue should be considered? As for your holding no brief for the aforemetntioned Society, you sure fooled me. Thanks for the link.
I'm afraid you're all missing the point. I'm not concerned about the battle of ideas, such as it is, between the Cardinal Newman Society and the Society for the Study of Cardinal Newman. Have at it, I say.I am concerned that the Society for the Study of Cardinal Newman is proceeding in a way that is unethical. Here are the respective URLs:http://cardinalnewmansociety.orghttp://cardinalnewmansociety.netThe SSCN is clearly using a confusingly similar domain name, which they registered about a month ago.But I was most concerned that Prof. Kaveny was uncritically assisting the SSCN's typosquatting. Apparently she's unaware that there is a protectable trademark interest in a domain name. See 15 U.S.C. s 1125(d).
The point was your assertions about ethics and the site names being "confusingly similar". I did not find them to be either confusing or unethical.The accusation of "uncritically assisting in cybersquating" seems so over the top to me that I wonder what is really going on here.Oh, and I assume you have legal expertise in this area.
Sorry, Nomilk, but I don't see any legal or ethical problem here, either.On the other hand, I suspect if the good cardinal were still intact in his grave, he'd be doing his utmost to turn over in protest.
Cathleen Kaveny is the Darald and Juliet Libby Professor in the Theology Department and Law School at Boston College.
Tweets by @commonwealmag