UPDATES have been added below.
I spent yesterday conferring with lawyers about the smear that Greg Laden made against me (see here) that was compounded by it being reprinted and Tweeted at Climate progress by Joe Romm. I think Romm now realizes that he made a mistake by not checking out Laden’s claims before he printed it. He’s now added an update walking back from his position a bit, adding a link to WUWT and a note for his readers to see how Laden purposely twisted the story. He also needs to make a note about this walkback on Twitter, since his story went out to thousands that way. CP is equally culpable in this by not checking Laden’s claims before publishing.
After review yesterday, it seems that Laden’s actions in his original and follow up story meet the legal tests for “False Light“.
Generally speaking, a false light claim requires the following:
- The defendant published the information widely (i.e., not to just a single person, as in defamation);
- the publication identifies the plaintiff;
- it places the plaintiff in a “false light” that would be highly offensive to a reasonable person; and
- the defendant was at fault in publishing the information.
While False Light is not recognized in Minnesota (where Laden resides) it IS recognized in Washington DC, where National Geographic is headquartered, and according to our research, Nat Geo has assumed editorial control of ScienceBlogs.com where Mr. Laden placed his essay.
The District of Columbia recognizes the tort of “false light.” Plaintiffs can sue for false light when a false and offensive statement is made about them to the public and causes them distress. The specific things a plaintiff must prove are listed below under “Elements of a False Light Claim.”
Note how NatGeo’s yellow box logo is placed prominently in two places on the SB header:
So, with all of Laden’s written false claims saved, with clear and indisputable examples of Laden’s purposeful malice, plus other examples of malice in context, and an establishment of the location editorial control of the blog he published the false claims on, it seems there is enough to move forward.
The question is, should I make an example of him for all us who have suffered non factual smears such as he practices? Just like I did with the original story that Mr. Laden smeared me about, I’m going to put the question up for discussion by the readers.
UPDATE: I’ve been asked privately why I have chosen to elevate this case, where I did not in a far worse case of smear by Climate Progress regular, Mike Roddy, who along with his co-author, when I requested a factual correction to a smear piece, he put in not one, but two suggestions (plus a comment at CP) that I have sex with farm animals.
It stems from this piece Roddy wrote about me, see the “corrections” at the end, which he apparently agrees with:
http://www.webcitation.org/5x0pgZdgl
Scroll all the way to the bottom to see the update.
I discussed this case with counsel yesterday, and we came to the conclusion that while most ‘reasonable people’ would likely not conclude that I’m a practitioner of bestiality due to the context of the story, in the case of Laden’s story, most reasonable people would conclude that Laden’s story as written was accurate, since he went to great lengths to conceal anything in his story that showed the caveats I placed. That’s the actionable distinction with a difference. – Anthony
UPDATE1: Wow, just wow.
http://storify.com/Kieran_Madden/conversation-with-idebunkforme-gregladen-and-kiera
UPDATE2: Hilarious logic fail, from a comment at Laden’s blog:
‘Kudos to Greg for demonstrating the openness of this blog by allowing the WUWT attack dogs to post their vitriolic bilge. No censorship here, wish the same could be said of Mr Watts and his cronies.
The denialists are committing crimes against humanity, surely it’s time for legislation to close these sites down’.
UPDATE 3: 8AM PST 1/21/13 – Thanks to everyone for all of the helpful input, and for responding to the poll. Using these, I’ve made my decision. Comments are now closed as well as the poll. – Anthony
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Waste of time. Don’t. Please.
Walk on by.
Leave this post as a sticky for a week or two, and I ask all who have – or contribute to – other blogs/websites etc., even vaguely linked to science, weather, free speech, integrity, corruption in society and the rest, to mention this [and provide the link].
And, yes, emails to the Notional Geographic – a good idea from A.D. Everard.
There is Twitter, too, I’m told.
Not sure whether that would help. I don’t Twit [if that’s the verb].
No. Its like trolls. Ignore them. People frequenting his site are too way out to bother. Have some shuteye and think on it
An important thing to consider is that they would want you to sue and so tie up your time, your funds and your mental and physical health. They would love nothing more than for WUWT to fold. Please don’t take the bait. There will be biger battles ahead and, whether you will play an active part in them or not, we need you to report on it all. Things are heating up for the Catastrophic Mob, the end game is in sight. We need you and WUWT right where you are.
Anthony, you have to sue. It’s the only way these folks are going to learn that they can’t do this sort of thing to just anybody. Can you imagine what would have happened if General Motors hadn’t sued NBC over the exploding pickup trucks with rocket motors incident? When GM started crying, “foul” over that report, NBC immediately went into full circle-the-wagons defense mode. They did not for one second consider some introspection or internal investigation to find out if GM maybe had a point. They stood absolutely behind the Producer of that report until after the famous press conference in which GM showed all of the evidence they’d gathered and it became completely obvious that NBC had dishonestly rigged the entire thing. After being so embarrassed by the incident, NBC Dateline then started going to actual, scientific, crash test facilities for their reporting on vehicle safety. If GM hadn’t sued, NBC would still be smashing junkers together out on a country road someplace and calling it “responsible journalism”.
I would say sue. I’ll stand a small donation to a fighting fund. But then again, aren’t we all supposed to be well-funded and organised? (sarc)
I voted high road.
Why?
If you sue, when you win, it will only serve to make you feel better. It will never get any press other than your readership here (unless you manage to extract an exorbitant fee, with which you can fund media blasts about the case).
It will probably be a lengthy and stressful legal entanglement, and the year has just begun and there are so many more interesting things to focus on already.
Any admonishment will probably do nothing.
My real choice would be option D, a combination of B and C. Request a retraction/apology/explanation with threat of legal action, should he refuse.
I know nothing of your finances, but if you do go to court, Nat Geo’s “deep pockets” will probably find ways to make the case, shall we say, not economically feasible.
Anthony,
The results of this poll will reflect also the many WUWT viewers that have views like Cook’s, Lewandowsky’s, Gleick’s, Mann’s, Apachewhoknows, et al . . .
If I try to be in their shoes then how would I tend to vote? My thinking is that if I was among your most severe critics from an alarming AGW ideological belief system, I would encourage you to sue in the heat of your emotions. I would encourage you to be distracted from the science that is significantly and publicly undermining their alarming AGW ideological beliefs.
It is just my personal thinking about what I would do if I had their alarming AGW ideological beliefs.
John
Painless voting is all very nice, Anthony. Since you’re going to have to fund any suit, why not set up a legal expenses fund with a modest goal of $10,000? That’s only 500 people at $20 each.
Mr Watts, I voted you let him be. Mr Laden doesn’t read or write very well [aka is dyslexic] as he openly admits on the front of his blog, so this could all be a terrible misunderstanding. Arguably a sub-literate person ought to be more careful about what they say in print but I was brought up not to mock the afflicted.
Don’t get involved with the law. Keep the high moral ground. The temptation to sue when you have such a good case is hard to resist but just let WUWT be the beacon of reasonableness which it is. Many converts away from the AGW religion have commented how much they were influenced by the TONE of what happens on this website.
Justice and satisfaction are not provided by the court. All you will get is a final judgement based on the evidence accepted on trial day. You already know Laden is a liar, he will present lies.
Anthony, you have already won. Laden lies about you because it is all he has left. He knows he is beaten but can’t face it.
I vote to sue. I completely agree with the distinction made with the silly “farm animals” slur. That one was so obviously childish and outlandish that it couldn’t seriously be claimed to have misled anyone. Most would agree that the comment would do more harm to the buffoon-like author than to the target. But this is a calculated and deceptive, malicious piece of defamation. It demands a lawsuit, IMHO.
Anthony, I vote no: It will not cross the mark. Just back up a little, little bit and he’ll cross that line. And then? You have him.
Trust me: I’m a sniper from the old school Take your time, pick your target an hold the trigger slowly, slowly, slowly…
Anthony,
Dealing with this Kerakter is a waste of time and a distraction from your good work.
Dealing with him legally is the equivalent of kicking to the curb every dog dropping you see on the side sidewalk. You will only soil your shoes.
I agree with DAVIDMHOFFER. Put your efforts at what you are good at. Deconstruct the article and expose it for what it is. You have enough circulation to cause them to feel stress. They will kick him to the curb for you.
Anthony, I think it’s better to humiliate him in the court of public opinion than to take him to court.
Put pressure on National Geographic to remove him from their site.
Here’s an idea: perhaps you (or someone) can start an online petition at change.org demanding that Nat Geo remove bloggers who employ misinformation, straw man arguments and character assassinations to try to suppress free speech. Post the link here and let everyone sign the petition and make their opinions known.
I wouldn’t sue, Anthony. Steisand effect. Let him be, leave him obscure.
No. After reflection about something Anthony has mentioned a few times now I have changed my mind. Several times Mr. Watts has talked about needing to spend more time with his business, family issues, maintaining the blog, weather project, busy, busy, busy.
The question you have to ask yourself Mr. Watts is do you have the time to pursue this? Warmists will oddly win if you go to court because less time will be spent by you demolishing their nonsense.
1) Get your lawyers to write a threatening letter to Nat Geo demanding an apology.
2) Don’t make your mind up about legal action until towards the end of the time limit.
3) Don’t write anymore about the liar Laden (unless forced to do so by him).
Please sue him. All of those engaged in the agenda have no middle ground. They will go to the grave convinced that you, I and others who question are simply, the enemy. Facts, the truth, the course of the planet will not deter them.
Here in WA state, the so called dept of ecology, the new governor, the locals of NOAA and the entrenched structure of university faculties are simply on board a train that will not stop. Sue and hold nothing back. Take no quarter here.
Keep us in the loop, and let me know how to remit $ 20 to you for this effort. It MUST happen.
I will study parts of the site that I don’t usually do, in case the information is already up on how to contribute.
Thanks
– – – – – – –
otsar,
I had to look up ‘Kerakter’.
I enjoyed learning a new and useful word. Thanks.
It is the Greek word ‘kErakter’ which means character in English.
Nice.
John
If you have to file in D.C. for the law to favor you – I hope your lawyers include someone who actually practices in D.C. I haven’t practiced there but I expect D.C. juries to be heavily Left and heavily Green – so that in the event of trial they’d be looking for excuses to find against you and for Laden. (Who would then go on to say that a D.C. court had “cleared” hiim of lying a la you-know-who.)
Don’t sue for money just to “discourage others from talking.” Sure as hell do not sue for money in the hopes of getting “justice” – court will break your heart if you do that. If you sue for money, sue to get money, and take any reasonable settlement.
I voted “high road – don’t sue – fight free speech with more free speech.”
Well, Anthony, should you sue? Laden has clearly presented you in a false light. You have been smeared by falsehoods and these reflect on your credibility as a scientist and ultimately on the integrity of your purpose here at WUWT.
Yes, you should sue. The smear was deliberate and you can hardly turn away from it.
The comments at his website (let alone yours) overwhelmingly support you so he has discredited himself more than he has discredited you. Lawsuits take a HUGE amount of time and emotional energy. Further, it is completely obvious that you have a far higher profile than he has so a lawsuit initiated by you could be seen as “attacking the little man”.
Right now you hold the moral high ground, a lawsuit could lose you that resulting in an opinion of “right but vindictive”. Revenge 99% of the time is futile and destroys both sides so what ultimate outcome would be worth the time and emotional cost. Money? Sense of satisfaction?
A suggestion, send a polite solicitors letter to National Geographic objecting to the comments and demanding an apology and see what response they give. Do they defend him, apologise or ignore your letter. Whichever response you get publicise it on your blog (at least 100+ times the exposure of his to judge by the level of comments). If they apologise you have your vindication, if they defend him you have more ammunition if you want to go further and if (as I suspect) they ignore the letter it gives you the opportunity to show on your blog just how spineless NG and discredits them as well as Laden in a very safe way.
I believe in choosing one’s battles – and although it seems likely that suing in this case would result in some sort of victory, this is the wrong battle.
We’ve watched the AGW believers get increasingly shrill and desperate, and soon enough one or more of them will do something stupid enough to justify a highly public lawsuit. In my opinion (which, I admit, is only my opinion), it won’t take long.
Your time is FAR BETTER spent elsewhere !!