Case 61-10 Precedent Distinction — Industry-Wide vs. Employer-Specific Advocacy
S · State
Individual
http://proethica.org/ontology/case/82#Case_61-10_Precedent_Distinction_—_Industry-Wide_vs._Employer-Specific_Advocacy
Properties
Instance of
Industry-WideAdvocacyDistinguishedfromEmployer-SpecificProductDissentState
http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#Industry-WideAdvocacyDistinguishedfromEmployer-SpecificProductDissentState
Active period
During the ethics board's deliberation and ruling on this case
Affected parties
Citizens Committee members
Engineer A
Engineer B
Ethics Board
Confidence
0.87
Importance
high
Subject
The ethical analysis distinguishing Engineer A's Citizens Committee activities from the Case 61-10 internal product dissent scenario
Terminated by
Ethics board's formal ruling distinguishing the two scenarios and affirming Engineer A's entitlement to engage in industry-wide civic advocacy
Triggering event
Potential applicability of Case 61-10 precedent (engineers should not question company's business decision on product quality) to Engineer A's industry-wide advocacy activities
Urgency level
medium
Source Evidence
Source text
What we have said does not conflict with the holding in Case 61-10
Text references
In this case, we are not dealing with the product of a particular company or any particular product.
This we believe they are entitled to do under the Code
What Engineer A and his colleagues are doing is taking upon themselves what they regard to be a public service designed to raise the quality of all products.
What we have said does not conflict with the holding in Case 61-10
TTL
@prefix owl: <http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#> .
@prefix proeth: <http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#> .
@prefix prov: <http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#> .
@prefix rdfs: <http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#> .
@prefix xsd: <http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#> .
<http://proethica.org/ontology/case/82#Case_61-10_Precedent_Distinction_—_Industry-Wide_vs._Employer-Specific_Advocacy> a proeth:Industry-WideAdvocacyDistinguishedfromEmployer-SpecificProductDissentState,
owl:NamedIndividual ;
rdfs:label "Case 61-10 Precedent Distinction — Industry-Wide vs. Employer-Specific Advocacy" ;
proeth:activeperiod "During the ethics board's deliberation and ruling on this case" ;
proeth:affectedparties "Citizens Committee members",
"Engineer A",
"Engineer B",
"Ethics Board" ;
proeth:conceptCategory "State" ;
proeth:confidence "0.87" ;
proeth:discoveredincase "82" ;
proeth:discoveredinpass "1" ;
proeth:discoveredinsection "discussion" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-03-02T13:35:38.472109+00:00" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "82" ;
proeth:generatedattime "2026-03-02T13:35:38.472109+00:00" ;
proeth:importance "high" ;
proeth:sourcetext "What we have said does not conflict with the holding in Case 61-10" ;
proeth:stateclass "Industry-Wide Advocacy Distinguished from Employer-Specific Product Dissent State" ;
proeth:subject "The ethical analysis distinguishing Engineer A's Citizens Committee activities from the Case 61-10 internal product dissent scenario" ;
proeth:terminatedby "Ethics board's formal ruling distinguishing the two scenarios and affirming Engineer A's entitlement to engage in industry-wide civic advocacy" ;
proeth:textreferences "In this case, we are not dealing with the product of a particular company or any particular product.",
"This we believe they are entitled to do under the Code",
"What Engineer A and his colleagues are doing is taking upon themselves what they regard to be a public service designed to raise the quality of all products.",
"What we have said does not conflict with the holding in Case 61-10" ;
proeth:triggeringevent "Potential applicability of Case 61-10 precedent (engineers should not question company's business decision on product quality) to Engineer A's industry-wide advocacy activities" ;
proeth:urgencylevel "medium" ;
proeth:wasattributedto "Case 82 Extraction" ;
prov:generatedAtTime "2026-03-02T13:59:43.300037"^^xsd:dateTime ;
prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 82 Extraction" .
Metadata
Extraction details
Discovered in case
82
Discovered in pass
1
Discovered in section
discussion
First discovered
2026-03-02T13:35:38.472109+00:00
First case
82
Generated
2026-03-02T13:35:38.472109+00:00
Attributed to
Case 82 Extraction
Generated
2026-03-02T13:59:43.300037
Generated by
ProEthica Case 82 Extraction