[anonymouskimmer]

So you're saying that the law should force people to stay in a business relationship? Like let's say this wasn't a teacher employed by a school district, but an independent tutor directly employed by parents. The law should force those parents to continue hiring the tutor? What if the parents have an independent plausible (or real) reason to cease doing business with the tutor?

[bsder]

> So you're saying that the law should force people to stay in a business relationship?

If the school receives public funding? Absolutely.

How many of the parents whining about the teacher actually had students in her class? Normally, in cases like this, you'll have something like one parent with a student in the class and a bunch of the Fox News pearl-clutcher brigade who don't even have children in the school.

> Like let's say this wasn't a teacher employed by a school district, but an independent tutor directly employed by parents.

That's a tougher problem. I still don't like it, but there's probably not a lot that can be done in that case. However, the mob mentality is also a bit dampened since the interactions are both individual and unforced.

[anonymouskimmer]

I agree with you on how #1 should have been handled.

Independent contractors depend hugely on word of mouth and referrals.

[dragonwriter]

> So you're saying that the law should force people to stay in a business relationship?

If by “force” you mean “impose a legal duty that, when violated, incurs a liability from the violator to those harmed by the violation”, sure, and nondiscrimination law already does that, and has for a long time: the discussion here is about the scope of that mandate.

[anonymouskimmer]

Regardless of the scope there will always be cases that aren't covered by it without draconian legal compulsions.

It's much easier and more legitimate to force the original defamer to make the defamed party as whole as possible. And otherwise try to prevent such defamation. Or at least it was before anonymous internet publication.