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.
IMHO he’s not worth the effort… Why take a sledgehammer to crack a nut?
Anthony, TBH I don’t know why you’re bothering with Laden. He’s extremely small fry. His readers (the four that he has) are all alarmists already, so it’s not like his comments changed those readers opinions of you.
Worry about REAL climate issues. For instance, why are alarmists focusing on a rare combination of naturally occurring conditions (Indian Dipole, hot Indian Ocean, near El Nino conditions, late monsoon, Antarctic Oscillation) which caused the Aussie heatwave but calling it “global warming” instead of the near total freezing of the northern hemisphere?
Note: the monsoon thing is important. The total lack of tropical cyclones (season begins in November) has failed to pull the monsoon south over Australia.
My question is this: What if the suit became widely known? How would suing National Geographic (primarily, rather than Mr. Laden) appear to those in the public you want to influence? Would the “Anti-Science” label that GL tried to pin on you all of a sudden stick? Could you win the battle & harm the war?
Anthony, as despicable as Laden has repeatedly shown himself to be, I think that if I were at your keyboard, I’d be more inclined to go the “Open Letter to National Geographic route” – which we could “crowd-propagate” far and wide:-)
If NG have any concern at all for their “brand” – and reputation (setting aside how they’ve tarnished it themselves with their own advocacy-tainted articles, as David Hoffer noted above) – I cannot see how they can fail to be concerned about Laden’s demonstrations of inadequate reading comprehension skills and/or willfully deceptive journalistic practices.
Laden claims to be a “biological anthropologist and science communicator” whose “research has covered North American prehistoric and historic archaeology and African archaeology and human ecology”
And, who knows,
perhapsprobably he is; but surely the readers of National Geographic deserve a much higher quality of “science communication” – and adherence to minimal journalistic ethics – than that with which Laden’s background appears to have equipped him.But I must say I found it quite ironic – if not verging on sheer unadulterated hypocrisy – that one who insists on doing all the “thinking” for his readership (by his policy and practice of failing to link to the source material of those whose views differ from his own) should also claim to be an “OpenSource and OpenAccess advocate”.
On the “to sue or not to sue” question, I don’t know if you’ve had an opportunity to read CEI’s anti-SLAPP brief – and of course IANAL – but as a lay person it seems to me that some of the arguments and legal precedents cited could be potential minefields when the suit is on the other foot (pardon my mixed metaphor).
Hilary Ostrov [hoping against hope that WP commenting is now back to normal and that this comment does not end up in spam-trap or disappear into the ether]
And besides, who could possibly feel sympathetic toward a creep like Laden? It’s too bad there is no venue in Texas, West Virginia, or Louisiana.
Contact him and c.c. National Geographic and nicely but firmly ask them to print a retraction or clarification because you are reluctant to go the legal route except as a last resort. Then you always have the option to go forward if they do not comply.
So this is really doing all three. You are taking the high road, you are asking for a correction and you are holding the legal action decision to a later point in time.
Do not go to law seeking justice, you are unlikely to get the answer you seek. The lawyers will do well though.
The best result would be to seek a full retraction and apology. For him, a bitter pill to swallow.
Imagine that, a warmist admitting he was wrong! Now there’s a novelty!
My vote was to sue, but having read the other comments, I have changed my mind. Greg Laden has demonstrated that he is an extreme and obnoxious example of the attitudes espoused by many climatologists and fellow-travellers. He cannot be stupid, as he has been to Harvard. So he knows deep down that his dogmatic views on climate and politics would not stand up if people were to calmly and objectively evaluate the evidence and compare the arguments. In fact, the AR5 Draft (leaked by Alec Rawls) shows that even the UNIPCC admit that past alarmism on hurricanes and extreme weather has no scientific foundation.
So Laden’s reaction, like many others who see their beliefs threatened by reality, is to encourage prejudices, block alternative points of view, engage in trivia, and reduce the standards of science. All so that he, and others, can evade the reality that not only are other perspectives plausible, but that such perspectives far superior than his own. Please do not get involved in legal action, but encourage the raising of standards in science and also proper debate.
The only definite winners will be the legals, don’t waste your time, he’s not worth it.
Anthony, you should initiate suit proceedings. Laden committed a deliberate character assault on you, your reputation, and WUWT. He did it because either he felt there was no risk to him of a consequence or that National Geographic would protect him, thus encouraging him to commit future character attacks. Ideally the initial proceedings will garner a settlement. NG may not want to be a willing participant on the loosing side of a legal case.
There is excellent wisdom being offered by your readers and they have provided many options, which is good news. Its also bad news because most every option is in the open. I’m sure you will choose wisely.
It is not likely that Laden could become a martyr since liars/deceivers make poor martyrs.
On the positive side, Laden’s actions prove how desperate AGW supporters are to stop the truth. The success of WUWT in combating AGW myths means more attacks, unless there is a creditable consequence. This is precisely why a suit is necessary. Winning one suit may be enough consequence to deter future attacks.
Note of caution: If your lawyers can prosecute without involving much of your time then let them run with it. If they advise a suit will become a time consuming black-hole then abort. Impeding your involvement with WUWT would be an AGW victory.
You may “sue the pants off him” only to find he has “gone commando” : > (
Canman @ur momisugly 11:53. You said: “Blogs allow the blogger to express his or her real thoughts on any particular topic. Hyperbole and smears are going to unavoidably be part of this.”
With all due respect, I have to disagree. WUWT is proof to the contrary. Blogging isn’t the problem. Recto-cranial inversion is the problem, in this or any other medium.
Treat it just like something you would walk around if you spotted it on the pavement.
“They pull a knife, you pull a gun. He sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue. That’s the Chicago way!”
Jim Malone (as played by Sean Connery) in “The Untouchables”
I never argue with Sean Connery.
Anthony, I want what’s best for you. If you can sue without putting yourself/family/WUWT at risk then I say go for it. I have no legal background and will support you either way. But from Discover magazine to Scientific American to National Geographic they continue to peddle “scientific smut” to our citizenry.
Not all of us are in such a position to make a stand such as this. But know that if you stand up to them… we will stand with you!
I am Anthony Watts!
Sorry I’m pressed for time, so this may already have been suggested.
Demand an apology first. If that is not appropriate, then sue. In the world of tort, making a good faith attempt to reduce the impact of the offence by the offended goes a long way to increasing the offended’s odds of winning. This means that if there is an appropriate apology you will need to then take the high road.
I would sling some mud at Nat Geo, how useless they have become, how radical their message, why people should not support them financially, how useless their bloggers are using Laden as an example. Then let them come to you.
You’re already the world’s most viewed site on global warming and climate change. So you’ve already won. Taking it into the courts isn’t going to help you. There’s nothing more anyone wants to know about Greg Laden.
My heart is outraged and says yes, but my head overrides and says no. It’d be a huge time and effort and he’s not worth it. I like Barry Woods approach (at 11:41 am).
I love this blog, but a suit would futile. You’re a public figure. You’d lose for the exact reason Mann will lose against National Review.
Beyond that, lawsuits for speech are unseemly. You’ve built a heck of a soapbox to stand on, and you’ll find a better defense there than in a court house.
Sue. They cant win the debate with the science so they try to win by smearing people.
This sint a game anylonger, you cant allow them to continue to make false statements and suffer no consequence when you suffer a detriment because of it.
Bullies always pick on the one that dosnt fight back.
Turning the other cheek might well be an admirable thing to do but in the world of laden and friends its lays you open to a punch whilst your looking the other way.
Good intentions and righteousness wont win the fight, you have to fight terrorists at their level, even if it goes against your principles, its the only way redress the balance, imho.
Normally I wouldn’t care less what someone writes in a blog. But in this case Greg Laden is in a position of influence, and has gone out of his way to make the worst impression he could of Anthony and his site. I believe Greg Laden needs a more than a smack on the writs over this one; it is a disgusting piece of writing.
Anyone is allowed to disagree with another. There are many sites I’ve visited on the web which I completely disagree with, so what, I’m allowed. This piece by Greg Laden is disgustingly personal and very grubby and from a position of influence. He deserves a legal defence for this one.
I voted yes, please sue. The real target here is National Geographic. Nat Geo is a big name and should be encouraged by legal action to take responsibility for blogs that appear under its name.
I voted to sue, but have now read more comments. Do not sue. Even contacting NG may be a waste. An apology from them will likely be as satisfying as the usual whitewash investigations.
John West at 8.02 is probably right in outlining the best course to follow. It’s important to get Nat Geog to make and enforce the apology, not just Laden. It’s important to take some action, but proportionate. Start with lawyers letters inc to Nat Geog
It really angers me that the warmists get away the whole time with these egregious slanders, but Bob Tisdale put it well: “Anthony, the only people who will make money for certain are the lawyers. Ask Nat Geo to post your rebuttal on Greg Laden’s blog. That would frost Laden.”
I voted for sue.
If you can get some serious action and perhaps a bit of money from Nat Geo., that would be nice too.