Is unanimity cause for confidence?

That's the question that drives the conversation when Paul Edwards, Diane Helbig, and Tamsen Webster, MA, MBA join the ethics panel to Grapple with the Gray.

Here is our topic:

Nobody seems happy about the Lindsay Clancy verdict. Many liberals are outraged that a single intransigent juror could cause a mistrial in place of acquittal. Many conservatives are outraged that a woman could be held unaccountable for the murder of her three children.

Ancient Judean law seems to come down on both sides. “No one commits a crime,” the sages teach, “unless overtaken by a spirit of insanity.” Taken at face values, it might seem that we can all claim temporary insanity for any transgression. Given that the insanity defense is sometimes entirely just, how do we define where the boundaries lie, and how do we prevent it from being abused?

If that isn’t enough food for thought, when deciding a capital case, a unanimous verdict of guilty resulted in the case being thrown out of court. Without at least one dissenting voice, the judges were forced to suspect themselves of unconscious bias, preferring to let a likely criminal go free rather than risk the slender possibility of putting an innocent man to death.

Why does our system require a unanimous verdict? Do the pros really outweigh the cons?

Is the Clancy case an example of where moral relativism can lead us, or does it characterize a judicial system that seeks to integrate compassion into its quest for true justice?

Meet this week’s panel:

Paul Edwards is a US Army veteran and former ghostwriter. He is currently a relapsed insurance agent favored by faith-based business leaders – when he’s not escaping the Arizona heat coaching ice-hockey.

Diane Helbig is Chief Improvement Catalyzer at Helbig Enterprises, providing guidance and training to business owners and leaders around the world.

Tamsen Webster is a keynote speaker, message strategist, and “Idea Whisperer.” She uses her proprietary Red Thread method to help audiences, organizations, and individuals build and tell their stories to promote real, transformative change.

People come in all shapes and sizes. So do countries. But which is more important?

That's the question that drives the discussion when Deb Coviello, ☘️Mark O'Brien, and K Kimi Hirotsu Ziemski join the ethics panel to Grapple with the Gray.

Here is our topic:

Have you ever compared the way countries appear on a map with how they appear on a globe? When representing three dimensional space in two dimensions, you can preserve either actual shape or actual size, but not both.

When the 16th century European cartographer Geert de Kremer, better known as Mercator, produced the map still in use today, he favored shape over size. That’s why equatorial regions, most notably Africa, appear smaller than they are, while other regions appear larger.

In a recent United Nations vote, 164 countries voted to “correct” the map. Six nations abstained. Only the United States voted no.

U.S. representative to the U.N. Yaryna Ferencevych declared: “Resolutions like this and the ideological agenda they promote, are… the reason this institution is losing its credibility. When the United Nations questions why it is losing legitimacy in the world, and is not taken seriously, time and again, we point to resolutions such as this.”

Obviously, there are more pressing issues. But commitment to accuracy is also a value. A better question might have been whether accurate size is more important than accurate shape, and whether ideology is driving one view over the other.

Is this really an issue worthy of discussion, or is it just another distracting skirmish in the culture wars that suck so much oxygen out of the global forum?

Meet the panel:

Deb Coviello, aka the Drop in CEO, is an author, speaker, podcast host, and silver medalist curler who coaches C-Suite leaders of today and tomorrow to navigate challenges with confidence.

Mark O’Brien is founder and principal of O’Brien Communications Group, a B2B brand-management and marketing-communications firm — and host of The Anxious Voyage, a syndicated radio show about life’s trials and triumphs.

Kimi Hirotsu Ziemski is Founder of KSP Partnership, providing project management and project leadership courses and workshops to improve team dynamics and communications.

How far must we go to anticipate unintended consequences?

That's the question that drives the conversation when Stewart Wiggins, Peter Winick, and K Kimi Hirotsu Ziemski join the ethics panel to Grapple with the Gray.

Here is our topic:

Have you ever watched a movie “based on a true story”? How about “inspired by true events”?

Two Miami police officers were deeply uninspired by Matt Damon and Ben Affleck’s recent movie, The Rip. In fact, they are suing the actors' production company, Artists Equity.

The film does not mention officers Jason Smith and Jonathan Santana by name. Nevertheless, they claim that colleagues and family members have recognized them from the film’s portrayal, and that they have suffered "substantial harm to their personal and professional reputations [from implied] misconduct, poor judgment, and unethical behavior in connection with a real law enforcement operation."

The lawsuit claims that the "the film's use of unique, non-generic details” points clearly to the plaintiffs. By opening with text, “inspired by true events,” the producers become culpable for defamation by including a non-factual narrative of corruption, graft, and murder. The plaintiff’s claim intentional infliction of emotional distress as well.

Whether the case has merit from a legal standpoint is not our discussion here. But to what extent are filmmakers responsible for implications and innuendo that might lead to reputational damage?

If, as the plaintiffs claim, they have been identified from the film by colleagues and family members, is that not “defamation by implication” as the claim suggests? Or are they drawing more attention to themselves through the lawsuit, which many commenters see as frivolous and opportunistic?

Meet this week’s panel:

Stewart Wiggins joins us from Paris. He is Chief Advisor at Induna Advisors, working to significantly increase company revenue by developing positive client reports and establishing solid business relationships.

Peter Winick works with individuals and organizations to build and grow revenue streams through their thought leadership platforms and is host of the Leveraging Thought Leadership podcast.

Kimi Hirotsu Ziemski is Founder of KSP Partnership, providing project management and project leadership courses and workshops to improve team dynamics and communications.