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.
Sue National Geographic and see just how fast they cut the obnoxious Laden adrift
I voted in the poll, only because I knew it wouldn’t affect Anthony’s decision.
My mantra:
“never give advice, someone may take it”.
As advised by a respected advisor.
hehe, you are most welcomed Anthony
we might disagree here and there about climate stuff, but Laden is out of line
################
Steven Mosher says:
January 17, 2013 at 7:56 am (Edit)
Anthony perhaps you need to take this further..
The issue would be called “False Light” google it.
Just to be clear Anthony, I had an issue with a certain newspaper who had gotten one of my quotes wrong. mere mention of “False Light” got their attention.
So, i’d start with a letter to nat . geo demanding a correction, retraction, etc. Then decide next steps
I voted for sue. But reading some of the comments here have changed my position. You should ignore Laden and instead use threat of tort to force an apology from Nat Geo, to be posted both on Ladens blog and any and all other blogs and publications that Nat Geo own or put their name to including the glossy magazine.
However, it would seem from the legal advice that court action is fraught with risk and expense and requires extensive advice. Another commenter, Phil, made a good point, “Impeding your involvement with WUWT would be an AGW victory.”
IMO, “Wormtongue” Laden shows signs of being a malignant narcissist who preys on everyone he knows, including his “friends”. The best– and, strangely, the kindest– course is that which would induce his CAGW and “science” pals to dis and ditch him publicly and irreversably, thus cutting off his accustomed source of “supply”. The same could be said about many of “The Team” and their camp followers, especially a certain tort-uous individual whose initials melt in your mouth, not in your hand.
I’ll contribute to your fighting fund, but I think a total apology published wherever the slurs appeared, with the same prominence as given to the original, should suffice. The humiliation would be unbearable.
would you sue a goldfish ? no….. how far from a goldfish is he ?
You may “sue the pants off him” only to find he isn’t a guy after all.
(That’s how to handle Mr/Ms Laden.)
Laden claims a doctorate in Anthropology. Recently the American Anthropological Association dropped the word “science” from the association’s mission statement. At the same time, the statement indicates that one AAA mission is to make “expertise” available.Apparently “science” is considered “colonialist” and privileged. The action has lead to the departure of a number of individuals with Anthropology degrees who operate in fields where the scientific method is considered essential.
I voted for force an apology
I guess what Im saying is threaten to sue National Geographic and Laden unless they print an apology. Is there a “statute of limitations” on this type of thing? A threat of future litigation if they cross the line again at some point in the future.
I guess I’m a bit sympathetic to the Monckton idea that there is a need to build rat holes to allow warmists to jump ship rather than corner them on the other side?
National Geographic are not known for their rigorous science and you have no qualms about sticking it to them about it – and neither you should – but allowing them to backtrack when they are wrong…. Maybe bridges can be built and standards raised?
Charles.U.Farley says:
January 18, 2013 at 2:39 pm
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.
—————————————————————————————————————
But, honestly, what detriment has Anthony (or WUWT) suffered? So a few – and his readership IS “a few” morons and their friends have had the view they already hold “confirmed” but a deliberately inaccurate post.
As things stand:
——————–
His reputation hasn’t suffered because it was already non-existent with these mindless boors.
His credibility isn’t reduced, because the people who might set any store by this post already fail to grant him any.
He won’t suffer financially because he isn’t sceptical of AGW for financial reasons,
He may (justifiably) be feeling pissed off at having an innocuous post, with plenty of clear caveats and on an entirely different subject, distorted into an attack on his AGW views in this way. But that’s little more really than having his feelings hurt.
If he decides to sue:
————————-
His reputation as someone who is even handed and “above” the mud slinging MAY be tarnished amongst any impartial onlookers.
His credibility MAY be reduced with some, especially if there’s any sort of cash settlement.
He MAY suffer financially because of the cost of litigation.
Any and all of those things, if they happen, will NOT be detriment caused by Laden, they will have been caused by his own decision to sue over (essentially) hurt feelings. That may even be just what Laden is angling for.
Although, in that last sentence, I’m crediting Laden with far more intelligence than the innane and pathetic tripe he spouts suggests – it would take at least the intellectual capacity of a 14 year old to think that far ahead 😉
“I often start a post in which I muse on the topic with something like “I’m not an expert, and the experts will tell you where I’m wrong, but …” then I say some stupid stuff.”
Greg Laden
http://freethoughtblogs.com/rockbeyondbelief/2012/07/04/greg-ladens-sometimes-the-bad-guys-win/
Why would National Geographic want to be associated in any way whatsoever with someone who is capable of writing:
“You certainly don’t need me thinking of you as a human being.
“Think about that. You f****** s***.
Now, get forever out of my life. Do not turn back. You do not deserve to even know the people you’ve insulted in that idiotic post you wrote. Don’t ever, ever find yourself in my presence or think you deserve to breath the air that I,……… and the rest of us breath, because you do not.
If you do make that apology it better be from laying face down in the mud.
Have a nice day and kiss my a***.
Greg
PS, don’t you dare ask, ever again, for an upvote or any other support from your colleagues. I’ll kick your f******* a** if you do. You will regret it. (Unless that apology is forthcoming.)
http://freethoughtblogs.com/rockbeyondbelief/2012/07/04/greg-ladens-sometimes-the-bad-guys-win/
The post Laden wrote was entirely malicious and without any scientific merit whatsoever. In the first instance perhaps a letter to Christopher G. Johns, Editor in Chief, National Geographic, would be appropriate as I doubt he is aware of Laden’s antics.
I don’t know how, or indeed why, National Geographic would stoop so low as to support Laden’s blog. Their association with someone who courts so much trouble clearly risks severely damaging the reputation of National Geographic.
Link for first Laden quote:
http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2011/10/01/free-thought-blogs-dot-com-gro/
Go for a series of articles to be published by nat geo- S.Mosher on his hunt for the reptilian gleick monster,Tony B on historical climate,Willis on thermostat hypothesis,Anthony on US temp record.The list of authors and subjects of merit posted on this site over the years could contribute some honesty to nat geo for years to come,if that means anything to them.
Anthony I ask you not to consider legal action, and I’ll tell you why…
For the most of my life I thought skeptics were idiots – conspiracy theories – nut jobs. I had no real reason for this except that’s what everyone told me was the case, and I never considered the matter future.
For reasons I don’t remember I decided to look into some skeptical blogs. Maybe I heard someone say something I wanted to fact check, maybe I wanted to confirm to myself skeptics were crazy – I don’t recall.
I do recall however that you were not crazy – in fact it was your high mindedness that made me reconsider my earlier beliefs and look into the climate debate.
You were not only logical and scientific (more so than the scientists) but you welcomed open debate, even against those who disagreed with you.
And when someone insulted you and your ideas… you asked them if they wanted to do a guest post provided they leave the ad hominem at home.
I’m still not sure where I fall in the climate debate (leaning more towards skeptic), but I can tell you this – your blog is one of the few blogs I can still stomach to read.
I have given up trying to get a reasonable perspective on the climate for a simple reason: every warmist blog I read is so ugly and vile in there smears that I can’t stand more than a few paragraphs.
Now I think this does some injustice to someone out there in that they run a warmist blog that discusses the facts and is reasonable (I hope so at least) – but I haven’t found them.
The reason I am drawn to you, in fact the reason I am drawn to any of the blogs I read, is because you take the “moral high road”. Others can insult you and snip your comments and you will welcome them to do a guest post.
You even took away the “Al Gore is an idiot” tag, which is being far more considerate to Al Gore then he ever would be to you.
I don’t think I’m alone here. I think turning the other cheek gives you great credibility in the eyes of many people, and allows them to stop and listen to your arguments instead of dismissing you altogether.
I recall for instance that when Al Gore and Bill Nye did their CO2 experiment that you checked for home a reader wrote in to say their father (if memory serves) say your post and was impressed by the scientific process you demonstrated. I got the impression that although he never considered skeptic arguments before then he will now, thanks to you.
I think taking legal action would hurt this. It would “bring you down to their level”.
Though some may argue (and be right) that you can sue while still encouraging open debate and scientific procedure, I would argue it just feels bad.
Like a child who can’t take the older kids teasing and so runs crying to mommy…
Not someone who I would trust on scientific matters.
Now some may argue (and be right) this is illogical and irrational, but I would argue that you can’t will be with logic if you can’t first get them to listen. And it’s hard to get them to listen if you come across as insecure (which I think you will). They will mistake your actions against this blogger to be because you cannot stand people talking bad about you. They will then future mistake this insecurity for meaning that you are also insecure in your arguments about global warming.
The inner monkey is not that smart.
Make up your own mind of course, but I would like you to consider my words and whether legal action is really worth it and will make you feel better in the long run. I think years down the road you will look back on this and be happy you decided not to sue.
If you are able to sue NatGeo, I’d say go for it. Greg Laden himself is a pathetic little loser, does not worth the effort.
More importantly, I am a firm believer in the inalienable right of the individual to free speech. Greg Laden as such indisputably falls into that broad category. If he says anything preposterous, you do have every right to fight him using the same device (i.e. free speech), as you have already done indeed, right here, successfully.
On the other hand, the case of corporate entities like the National Geographic Society is entirely another matter. They may be authorized (by law) to exercise certain rights originally reserved for natural persons only (like property rights), but that alone does not make them into persons, whose basic rights, including free speech are fully protected by the Constitution.
No corporate entity is supposed to have conscience, only financial interests. Neither are they inherently mortal and there is no reason to suppose they “are created equal”. It was never declared anywhere corporations may have been endowed with spiritual and immortal souls. Finally, they only have a very narrowly defined legal responsibility compared to individual human beings, restricted to financial remedies, and even then only to the extent of their assets. They may have a charter that defines further obligations for persons who choose to join the organization, but should they fail to do so, it is very hard to enforce it in court for anyone from the outside.
Establishment of corporations (just like governments) is an early attempt to to bring certain AI (Artificial Intelligence) abilities into the world before the feat actually becomes technically feasible. They are “machines built of persons”, with power far exceeding that of any individual. As such, they must be put under control, otherwise nasty events may follow, as we know more than well enough from history.
One such device of control is the ability of natural persons to sue corporations at court for financial remedies. In my opinion to exercise this right is more like an obligation than a simple ability, otherwise these entities are inclined to run amok.
That said, I would advise you to ask your counsel to look into the issue some deeper. It is true each page at scienceblogs.com bears the logo of NatGeo along with the slogan “In partnership with National Geographic”. I suppose there must be a written contract between the National Geographic Society and ScienceBlogs LLC (owner of the site, based in New York, NY, owned by Seed Media Group LLC, Brooklyn, New York) that authorizes the latter to use intellectual property & authority of the former one to promote its own asset. At this point it becomes pretty murky for me, as it is for almost anyone. Not by pure chance, I have to add, a tangled web of (ir)responsibility is something intentionally engineered by corporate lawyers, that’s their job after all, this is what they are payed for.
Anyway, National Geographic certainly has the power to force ScienceBlogs LLC to remove their logo and any reference thereof from their site, specifically from Greg Laden’s blog. If you can make them do it by legal means, go for it.
Should this happen, it has to be documented. It would make a fine story, to be publicized widely in the blogosphere, with a slight chance even to make its way into MSM.
Just posted over there:
Surfer Dave
Perth, West Australia
January 18, 2013
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
Well Mr Laden, you have conclusively proven how much of a hypocritical liar you are. I tried to submit a comment where I included the full text of Watt’s very clear and obvious caveats about the claims yet you have deliberately chosen to suppress those caveats and my comment. QED, you are a liar and a buffoon. BTW, I voted on Watt’s poll to say “Take the high ground and move on” but now that I’ve seen your full blown narcissistic attitude I now earnestly do hope that he sues the pants of you because you fully deserve it.
I guess this is unlikely to be “approved” and once again you will demonstrate your hypocrisy and mendacity since you claim, wrongly, that Watt’s suppresses your comments on his site.
These scientists and their followers have an agenda, that much is clear. Since they want their agenda to succeed, they will attempt to destroy any and all resistance to their agenda. You, Anthony Watts, are one of the number one targets that they will need to eliminate in order to further their aims.
This is only the beginning. You really should fight back twice as hard to discourage further problems like this in the future because they will continue pushing and pushing, just to see how far they can take it. Ultimately, the goal is to completely discredit you in the eyes of everyone.
Start a legal fund. I will donate a few bucks. I don’t have much, but I will back you.
Just sue the spectacles off his face. Then he won’t be so astigmatic.
===========
A lawsuit would astronomically increase the influence of this man Laden, whom I had never heard of until your first post about this fracas. That is not in anyone’s interest except possibly Laden’s. Even if you win, you still lose, and all AGW skeptics would have a share in the loss.
Moreover, I am not convinced that this particular smear will be deemed to meet the “highly offensive to a reasonable person” bar which sounds like a fairly tall hurdle to me. The smear does indeed cast a false light over you, but I got nervous when I read that the false light has to cause reasonable people to actually be offended by your beliefs about something or other, in order for you to win. That is a subjective standard, subject to people’s political views and biases; and lest we forget, we are talking about the District of Criminals, here.
Respectfully, I believe such a lawsuit would be a mistake.
Bad ground to fight on.
Fight smart in order to win, or to be a net contributor to victory.
RTF
It was a deliberate smear with malice aforethought since, as you had pointed out, a larger screencap would have left him with no story. Something like that goes beyond small-minded people like Laden. NatGeo also bears responsibility for promulgating it. If you take this lying down, it will encourage those of Laden’s ilk. That said, it all depends on whether you have the time, energy, and funds to devote to this.
Before I go to bed I have one last thing to say. Anthony, do not snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Win the war and ignore this energy wasting battle against a demonstrated liar.
I come to this discussion late, but my thoughts are: what is your time and energy worth, and is it worth giving your attention to Greg Landon — other than here on WUWT. I like B. Peters’ distinction. Let the individual smear himself (free speech, even if nasty, unless there is something more important involved), but don’t let the corporation off the hook. If your legal counsel says National Geographic should be sued, fine, even great. It has turned into a leftist publication anyway. You probably will get significant financial support from your followers.
However, however, however, where do you want to give your time and energy? Pick your fights. Punch back twice as hard is the best way to go — if the fight is worth it. It’s up to you. I have voted “force” him to apologize, but I don’t know that works without the real threat of “punishment”. Anyway, best wishes on making your decision. I have belatedly sent in my subscription.
I’d love to see you sue. But you’re the one who would experience the legal headaches. So it’s a matter of whether you want to go through the trouble and set an example.