From a Heartland media release:
FEBRUARY 19 — The Heartland Institute has sent legal notices http://heartland.org/press-releases/2012/02/19/heartland-institute-sends-legal-notices-publishers-faked-and-stolen-docume to numerous Web sites, blogs, and publications asking them to take down the stolen and forged documents and what it views as malicious and false commentary based on them.
The following statement by Heartland Institute President Joseph L. Bast may be used for attribution. For more information, contact Director of Communications Jim Lakely at jlakely “at” heartland.org or 312-377-4000.
_____
“We realize this will be portrayed by some as a heavy-handed threat to free speech. But the First Amendment doesn’t protect Internet fraud, and there is no right to defamatory speech.
“For 28 years, The Heartland Institute has engaged in fierce debates over a wide range of public policies – school reform, health care, telecommunications policy, corporate subsidies, and government waste and fraud, as well as environmental policy. We frequently and happily engage in vigorous, robust debate with those who disagree with our views.
“We have resorted in the past to legal means only in a very few cases involving outright fraud and defamation. The current situation clearly fits that description, and our legal counsel has advised that the first step in defending ourselves should be to ask the blogs to take down the stolen and forged documents.”
President
The Heartland Institute
jbast”at” heartland.org
312-377-4000
_____
The Heartland Institute <http://www.heartland.org> is a 28-year-old national nonprofit organization with offices in Chicago, Illinois and Washington, DC. Its mission is to discover, develop, and promote free-market solutions to social and economic problems. For more information, visit our Web site http://www.heartland.org or call 312/377-4000.
====================================================================
Here’s the letter being sent to some websites and bloggers, DeSmog Blog and Greg Laden of ScienceBlogs (already in legal trouble over the Tallbloke libel) both got copies.
February 18, 2012
By e-mail to: editor “at” desmogblog.com
By Federal Express to:
Mr. Brendan G DeMelle
Editor
DeSmog Blog
[street address redacted]
Seattle, WA 98117-2303
Re: Stolen and Faked Heartland Documents
http://www.desmogblog.com/heartland-insider-exposes-institute-s-budget-and-strategy
Dear Mr. DeMelle:
On or about February 14, 2012, your web site posted a document entitled “Confidential Memo: 2012 Heartland Climate Strategy” (the “Fake Memo”), which is fabricated and false.
On or about the same date, your web site posted certain other documents purporting to be those of The Heartland Institute (“Heartland”). Heartland has not authenticated these documents (the “Alleged Heartland Documents”).
Your site thereafter has reported repeatedly on all of these documents.
Heartland almost immediately issued a statement disclosing the foregoing information, to which your web site has posted links.
It has come to our attention that all of these documents nevertheless remain on your site and you continue to report on their contents. Please be advised as follows:
1. The Fake Memo document is just that: fake. It was not written by anyone associated with Heartland. It does not express Heartland’s goals, plans, or tactics. It contains several obvious and gross misstatements of fact. Publication of this falsified document is improper and unlawful.
2. As to the Alleged Heartland Documents your web site posted, we are investigating how they came to be in your possession and whether they are authentic or have been altered or fabricated. Though third parties purport to have authenticated them, no one – other than Heartland – has the ability to do so. Several of the documents say on their face that they are confidential documents and all of them were taken from Heartland by improper and fraudulent means. Publication of any and all confidential or altered documents is improper and unlawful.
3. Furthermore, Heartland views the malicious and fraudulent manner in which the documents were obtained and/or thereafter disseminated, as well as the repeated blogs about them, as providing the basis for civil actions against those who obtained and/or disseminated them and blogged about them. Heartland fully intends to pursue all possible actionable civil remedies to the fullest extent of the law.
Therefore, we respectfully demand: (1) that you remove both the Fake Memo and the Alleged Heartland Documents from your web site; (2) that you remove from your web site all posts that refer or relate in any manner to the Fake Memo and the Alleged Heartland Documents; (3) that you remove from your web site any and all quotations from the Fake Memo and the Alleged Heartland Documents; (4) that you publish retractions on your web site of prior postings; and (5) that you remove all such documents from your server.
Please do not hesitate to contact me if you require any further information.
Very truly yours,
Maureen Martin
General Counsel
original Heartland PDF is here: Tier One – DeMelle
Go HI and Mr.Bast. Only by really exposing the dirty politics of the alarmists can this scam really start to be questioned by a majority of people.For those of you who say the HI is going to far,bullocks! You don’t fight bullies with warm,fuzzy feelings.For far to long we have let these guys get away with fraud,theft,and deception.It is time to fight fire with fire,only ours will be spontaneous,not acts of arson like the eco-cultists and fake scientists use.
Do not bother wasting your time on trying to convince warmista apoligists or pointing out the differences between private documents and tax-payer funded ones.
Take them all to court,and let’s see whose “facts” stand up in a court of law!
HEARTLAND
“When we find out who did this – and we will find out – they will absolutely need a lawyer,”…..
http://http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2012/02/heartland-on-fakegate-when-we-find-out.html
Phil C says:
February 20, 2012 at 7:36 am
““The Memo,” yes — they have stated that & I referenced that fact. But they remain silent on the remaining 100 pages of documents released. Authentic or not? If they’re not Heartland’s documents, then who are they to tell anyone to take them down?”
Are you warmists that thick? No intelligent ones left? Now you’re saying, hey, the rest could be forgeries as well, so anyone can publish them?
Charles Bruce Richardson Jr. says:
February 20, 2012 at 7:23 am
Is there a First Amendment right to forge documents?
A libel case brought by a public figure in the US normally must contain ‘malice’.
The definition of ‘malice’ in a libel case is that there was a ‘reckless disregard as to whether the statements were false’.
The ‘fake’ memo obviously harms the reputation of Heartland. The only remaining legal element is whether or not those who published it did it with ‘malice’.
Someone is going to have to explain to a judge how publishing a memo from an unknown source that Heartland has stated is fake isn’t ‘reckless disregard’.
Take the offending pages down, replace with “nothing found” and publish retractions pointing the the url (which points to nothing found).
Reminds me of the fake document re: GWBush’s air national guard service. Those who deal in forged documents can truly pay for the misdeed.
Of course Marines often are “smeared by fabrications.”
And Marines know too that victory over smears comes by truth, not by lawyers.
That is the simple principle that the Heartland Institute has not grasped.
R. Gates says:
So I would hope that the Heartland Institute will openly condemn the release of all the Climategate emails as well as all the defamatory speech direct toward the scientists involved.
Of course you hope that. But you also konw that HI has the ability to discern and employ moral principles, so you know that it is a false hope.
Climategate involved publically funded material. The Fakegate theft was of private, legitimately confidential material.
The Climategate materials involved gross professional misconduct (on the public dime, no less), and expositions of falsehoods and violations of the law. the Fakegate stolen materials were not incriminating.
The basis of the legitimately derogatory commentary around Climategate was based on authenticated emails. The illegitimate defamatory commentary directed toward HI from Fakegate was based on a fabricated memo.
You can hope to erase legitimate distinctions between these two circumstance – obliterating inconveneient moral principles is the liberal way. But it ain’t gonna happen.
That’s why they want the lies to come down. Can you please publish your bank account details on WUWT. Thanks in advance. ;>)
Some have been saying “will this go to court”? Because as far as I can see, the eco-nerds who published the false material want to brazen it out. Like the non-science of global warming, they are so full of their own self-belief that they cannot seen how flimsy their case is.
It would seem to me that the bloggers are foolish enough to go to court on a case they cannot hope to win on the law. So, in the face of such stupidity, the HI really have no option; Unless almost everyone just puts their hands up and gives in (from the bloggers to the BBC), the HI cannot come out of this with a reputation allowing them to function as a think tank/lobby group unless they win in court … which looks very likely.
The only way I can see the enviros winning, is if they so bog down the HI in legal argument that they are unable to function as an organisation for years and run out of money to fund the legal bill.
Let me get this straight, a forged document that might reveal how poorly funded the skeptics are compares to a release of emails ( perpetrator or whistleblower, whatever you like ) that shows that CRU science is completely unreliable to base policy on, yet billions have been spent on it. The similarities are uncanny, ……..
Do I really have to put a sarc tag on that?
Jimbo says: February 20, 2012 at 7:50 am<
Wiglaf says: February 20, 2012 at 6:23 am
“(2) that you remove from your web site all posts that refer or relate in any manner to the Fake Memo and the Alleged Heartland Documents; … (4) that you publish retractions on your web site of prior postings;”
Don’t these two contradict one another? How do you do “4″ without violating “2?”
This what you find at the post:
Jimbo says: February 20, 2012 at 7:50 [message removed]
Then somewhere on the site you write:
On 20th February we published a post contributed by “Jimbo”, it has been drawn to the attention of the management of this site that this post was libellous**. We have removed the content and wish to apologise to Jimbo. We particularly wish to emphasis that we do not think Wiglaf made love to a haggis and this in no way represents the views of the management of the site.
**obviously (but given current events best be safe) totally in jest and for illustration only.
Also a big “hello” to a physicist !! How ya doin’ buddy?
Hopefully this doesn’t go to trial – I’d be afraid that it would get OJ Simpsoned.
I must say though, this whole incident demonstrates an incredible lack of creativity among the warmists. They get slammed with damning leaks and in response they steal and fabricate their own anti-Climategate.
I wonder what left-wing organization has their fingers on this cookie jar? MM?
The hoaxster trolls are here. So for those new to the story, here are the facts:
1. The Climategate emails were not illegal obtained. They were released by an internal whistleblower showing evidence of illegalities. This whistleblower did not break the law, and can not be prosecuted. However, he remains anonymous as he’ll lose his job if he is exposed and become a pariah amongst his friends.
2. The Climategate emails had been collected because of an FOIA request, but illegally held back.
3. The Heartland 7 documents were obtained by illegal fraud. The person stole these emails and impersonated someone, probably felonies.
4. The 8th document with the most explosive content is a proven fake.
R.Gates, what are you doing on the internet? Thought you wanted to be a noble savage? Do they have internet capabilities?
That the London Guardian used material either obtained evidently by “blagging” or actually faked leaves it open to accusations of hypocrisy considering its reports directed against other newspapers accused of blagging in the lead up to the Levenson Inquiry.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/aug/31/press-privacy-information-commmissioner
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/greenslade/2012/feb/02/information-commissioner-leveson-inquiry?INTCMP=SRCH
Blagging = obtaining private information by deception.
Publishing leaked documents is in no way illegal, no matter how confidential the HI says they are. Presenting the fake document as real could get some bloggers in trouble, but the threat of legal action for going against HI’s confidentiality was one of the funnier things I’ve heard today. It’s like they’ve never heard of the first amendment, or they think they’re the NSA or something.
Richard, if your post said the same of the Heartland Institute, then their lawyers would aggressively threaten you with lawsuits … doesn’t that policy strike you as more than a little bit wrong-headed, and just plain un-American?
As for hypocrisy, the Marine principle “Be First With the Truth” leaves no room for it — because “Be First With the Truth” is a principle that either is embraced entirely, or else in the end, rejected wholly.
That is why the Heartland Institute is traveling down an exceedingly slippery moral path.
Jimbo: Take the offending pages down, replace with “nothing found” and publish retractions pointing the the url (which points to nothing found).
And this thread (with all previous related threads) will self destruct at ?? hours Zulu? I don’t see how the specifics of the take-down demand could be upheld. They need to find the forger. No question about his liability.
That awkward moment when you file a complaint about the behaviour of a journalist and it is the said journalist the one who replies to your complaint.
You cannot expect any reparations or fault confession when the person who you are complaining about is the only one reading your complaint.
Give it up! You sound like a journalist who erroneously thinks he onto something sinister.
If they remain silent it means only one of two things. They are fake which makes matters worse for your side. They are genuine in which case they can take them by legal action. Does it really matter?????
I presume their silence means that they are genuine, and so what?
Defamatory statements are, as they say, actionable. DeSmog & others aren’t doing parody nor are they attacking the faked letter as a fake. So, clearly, if the faked letter is defamatory, and there are so many internal and external clues that it is defamatory which they are ignoring, and yet they persist in making false accusations on the Heartland Institute, they will be in trouble in any court in any country. So, the HI threats against the primary blogs for defamation seems likely to win.
If you remember the Sarah Palin private e-mail hack. The fellow who hacked the much derided Palin’s private e-mails got 1 year in jail (suspended I think). So, that part of the HI threat the have the hacker arrested is valid.
Here’s an interesting case where a fictional story libelled a wildlife park and they were forced to take it down. The ACLU objected, of course, and won because the site was a satire site and should never have been taken seriously in the first place: http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/giraffe-satire-can-go-back-up-on-web-site
However, if DeSmog & others aren’t satire sites but have represented themselves as legitimate news sites, this option isn’t open for them regarding the faked letter.
And, yes, you can get a DMCA takedown on any document you created because only have copyright. Thus, any document HI can prove is theirs, they own the rights to and can force it off any website they want. Obviously, the CRU do not own the copyright for their documents because they are a public organization with FOIA obligations. It’s somewhat a grey area about copyrights and government organizations these days. It’s possible that the UK government could start issueing DMCA takedown notices for the CRU e-mails based on copyright. Of course, that would bring up the whole FOIA thing that they are avoiding. I’m sure the HI e-mails will stay available on foreign web sites, but, the blogs that have been using them to accuse them of misdeeds won’t be able to keep them up and possibly not link to them. NOt sure I support that last one, but, that seems to be how things are going these days.
The one important grey area is commentary. Commentary on a document is fair use if you do not use the entire document to do so. I haven’t seen any high profile case where people have been forbidden to comment on information illegally obtained… quite the opposite. So, that part is never going away unless I’ve missed some new doctrine.
$44,000 here, and $44,000 there, and pretty soon were talking 20 minutes of Al Gore’s time.
A physicist says:
February 20, 2012 at 7:02 am
At a dinner party …..
It appears to me that the US Armed Forces thoroughly appreciate a principle that the Heartland Institute has utterly failed to grasp: the vital role in democracies of open critical discussion, as an essential corrective to arrogance, weakness, lying, and abdication of responsibility.
That is why the Heartland Institute should embrace the Marine principle “Be First With the Truth”, not the principle “Be First to Threaten Litigation”, because most folks recognize, as a matter of plain common sense, that suppressive legal bluster is a royal road that leads straight to “arrogance, weakness, lying, and abdication of responsibility.”
==========================================================
Do you read what you write before clicking the post button? What you utterly fail to grasp, is that HI was first with truth and asked people to take down the lies to begin with. Places like DeSmog opted to print and propagate lies even after learning,(if they didn’t know beforehand) that in all likelihood they printed and propagated lies. If you truly want an honest discussion on the climate issue, you should start by going to places like DeSmog and insist that they quit lying and propagating lies. But, then, if that were to occur, most of the alarmists sites would shut down.
Personally, I’m sorta sad HI has done this. This has been fun times to just point and laugh at the people insisting on propagating these lies. But, I do understand HI’s angst about the lies out there about them.