On Jury Duty

Diana Hsieh’s May 15, 2011 treatment of Dr. Peikoff’s July 19, 2010 two-minute podcast response to a question about the validity of compulsory jury duty has been a source of controversy and contention among Objectivists.  Dr. Amy Peikoff took Hsieh to task for it in her own blog response.  Much of the controversy surrounded Hsieh’s demeanor throughout the nearly fourteen-minute webcast segment.  Checking Premises agrees that Hsieh’s demeanor was inappropriate (as Hsieh herself has since admitted and attempted to explain away), but we also believe that the substance, particularly the philosophical methodology displayed, of Hsieh’s treatment of Leonard Peikoff’s brief statement was extremely nonobjective due to her inability or unwillingness to maintain the context which was clearly established by Dr. Peikoff in his podcast.

 

Dr. Leonard Peikoff's podcast:
http://www.peikoff.com/2010/07/19/should-jury-duty-be-compulsory-as-it-is-in-the-u-s-today/

 

Diana Hsieh's webcast:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S5_97ac11Ok

 

Amy Peikoff's blog response:
http://dontletitgo.com/2011/05/21/jury-duty/