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.
Everyman says: “And that decision should be influenced, if not made, by those responding to poll questions . . . why, exactly?”
Don’t think we can’t hear the smarmy derisiveness behind that remark! Why, EXACTLY? Why not, EXACTLY? Anthony is entitled to ask whomever he wishes for advice, just as you are. Though I don’t think he’ll place much credence on the remarks of anonymous cowards like you.
Scott Brim says: “If the US public is ever impacted in a truly serious way by government imposed anti-carbon measures, the public’s perception of who is right and who is wrong about AGW science will depend mostly upon the credibility of the AGW science itself, not upon the public clashes of individuals in favoring one viewpoint over another, as these clashes and debates are now being pursued in the Internet blogosphere. ”
Yes the science matters, a lot. But don’t think this is only a science dispute. If we are that naive, we will be steamrollered beneath the lies, innuendos, insults, and the “wind of hate” that the scammers are relentlessly using against us. That can only be fought well by publicising the truth about who is lying and who is not. Therefore I favour O Olsen’s suggestion: accept an apology, but include Nat Geo in that – make them put it in a prominent place in the printed mag. Get legal advice though.
Chicken fight.
Have to say I voted for sue because it would expose CAGW as a further scam, but we know Aj Gorezeera lost and claimed victory ( the pig liked it). But on reflection, Laden could use the publicity and instead forcing a public apology by NG and Laden would bring humiliation not adulation. So in the end that might be much more effective.
@ur momisugly Gail Combs at 11:26 am
ROTFLMAO!
Perhaps Anthony should start a calendar fund for next year, the list of potential recipients keeps growing.
The moral ‘high road’ is to stop evil when you can. The high road here is to stop Laden, and hopefully others. Sue. Anything less, at this point, is bordering on cowardice – which seems to be the default position of skeptics.
How many cheeks can you turn?
Third poll option “Force him to print an apology, and leave it at that.” requires legal leverage. The threat of really bad stuff happening. I get the impression that Laden believes himself to be immune.
Alas, defamation doesn’t appear to be a crime in the USA. This makes action against those who deliberately smear others by misrepresentation, etc very difficult to punish unless one has a great deal of money to pursue civil action under e.g. common law.
More free speech is sometimes an effective counter to those who defame. But that doesn’t appear to be sufficient for the like of Greg Laden who think they can get away with saying anything; regardless of the harm that it causes. Their idea of free speech is just that; that they can say (and do) anything that they like, without any consequences. vis Gleick.
For the rest of us, free speech carries with it the responsibility of bearing the consequences.
I don’t believe that civil action against Laden, etc. is sufficient to have them recognize the meaning of responsibility.
Anthony, I believe the suit is the wrong direction to expend your energy. The success of this blog is far to valuable to divide your attention with the needs of a law suit. This guy is a loser, move on. pg
Adam says:
January 18, 2013 at 4:18 pm
Anthony I ask you not to consider legal action, and I’ll tell you why… [etc.]
*
Well said, Adam, you make some very good points. WUWT is special to all of us. I get the feeling more trouble would come out of suing. Not just time and effort and money, but destruction. Anthony? I think if the Catastrophic Mob could get you embroiled in this sort of thing, they will continue ceaselessly to undermine you and steal valuable time away from WUWT. If the situation is not already an ambush, I think they will quickly see the opportunity to make it one. They will shut you up or discredit you any way they can. Greg is not the right one to go to extremes over. He’s tiny. He’s petty. He’s worthless.
I vote “NO, take the high road, admonish him and move on.” Having been involved with the battles of internet critics and the Church of Scientology for many years, I’ve seen far too many internet pissing contests to think much good comes from them, even in the best of circumstances. And they get even worse when they go from the internet to the courtroom. You don’t need to convince us of anything, Anthony, and winning against Laden in court would be expensive, time-consuming, and won’t convince anyone who reads his blog of anything, anyway. Anyone reading him is already a true believer, and cannot have a change of mind until they turn off their cultic religious belief in CAGW.
Greg Laden is a just lying pisser. Let him stew in the soup of his own waste. And the truth will out. But I would vote to demote his blog in your blogroll to “unreliable” status. In fact, I think in your blogroll, you should have a “true believer” section, in which would be deposited all those blogs which censor rational but skeptical posts (e.g. SKS, RealClimate, Laden, Lewandowsky, etc, etc.)
waste of time, money and will cause you emotional distress suing . Will also possibly cause distress to Greg,so a lose /lose situation unless you like hurting people. Suing takes years, 5 at least in Australia, and even when your in the right you do not sleep well for those 5 years with all that angst. Money to lawyers is a waste of money and if you won would feel vile to have. Purpose of your post is most likely to demonstrate support for your position which it has done and that is more than enough. Greg Laden RIP
The United States form of judicial jurisprudence is designed to do one thing: protect the fool. Therefore, suing the fool should only be undertaken after much thought on just how hard it is to successfully bring suit against a fool and then to prevail. I would say don’t do it. A fool is soon known by his/her own words and actions. No judge is required.
Anthony should sue. Here is why:
If the nettle is not grasped, and an example made, the libel could revisit Anthony and WUWT repeatedly until it becomes a standard item of propaganda and a slogan is coined from it. Don’t forget the sorts that we are dealing with and the stakes involved.
Anthony is faced with the possibility of the slur being repeated until it gains currency. There is the possibility that a deliberate effort will make this slur permanent, just as the myth of AGW has been made permanent.
It would be inadvisable to hope that soon it will all be over and forgotten, in my view. Anthony has Laden nailed bang-dead. He would be doing the world and himself a service by calling the miscreant to account.
Greg Laden who?
Nobody knows and nobody cares who this guy is…until now that is. Congrats you just gave Greg Laden what he so desperately wants…attention. Like the morally bankrupt Peter Gleick, Greg is likely to see any suit as a Badge of Honor for his battle against WUWT deniers!
Wow.
http://storify.com/Kieran_Madden/conversation-with-idebunkforme-gregladen-and-kiera
Greg Laden is an over-educated idiot, whose education was a waste of time and money. He’s all degree – no common sense.
The question is whether or not to sue him for intentional, malicious defamation. Although he richly deserves it, as others have pointed out, it would be a waste of resources (like the money spent on his education). He’s a nobody.
National Geographic however, should be held accountable for for pulling the string on this propaganda doll. They pay and encourage him to disseminate total BS as ‘science’. Sue them! Demand a full retraction, and force them to give the over-educated idiot the boot. Good bye and good riddance to Greg Laden.
I voted to take the high road. It’s obvious to anyone with a brain that he was wrong. Don’t give him any more 15 minute blocks of fame or infamy.
Anthony should sue.Oh yes, for all the above reasons!
While I originally voted to sue, I’ve re-read the criteria, and I’m not sure that Laden’s blog reaches the level of “widely published”. After all, the vast majority of his articles have fewer than 10 comments. I’m betting that his traffic this week was up tenfold, due to this attention. However, it probably still wasn’t enough to register on Alexa.
If you do decide to sue, and win, even a small amount of money, it will be poetic for you to claim that wattsupwiththat is funded by pro-AGW money.
Anthony Watts says:
January 18, 2013 at 7:18 pm
Wow.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Just read it. Speechless.
I would add, I think a better route is to pressure the parent entity, e.g. NatGeo. If they do nothing, then they are exposed as liars as much as Laden is.
Jeremy says:
January 18, 2013 at 7:05 pm
Greg Laden who?
Nobody knows and nobody cares who this guy is…until now that is. Congrats you just gave Greg Laden what he so desperately wants…attention. Like the morally bankrupt Peter Gleick, Greg is likely to see any suit as a Badge of Honor for his battle against WUWT deniers!
==================
Other than the fact that Anthony wiped the floor with him, and he has a lawsuit hanging over his head, and National Geographic’s sales are already in the toilet.
He did get some attention.
Best to keep his head down now ?
If it is good enough for Michael Mann, …………..
Where do I contribute?
Anthony, I am not doing the reader poll and not offering you an opinion other than to say don’t let your judgement be influenced by others saying “let’s you and him fight.”
No. Let the idiots speak.
concerning the “widely published” issue – as soon as Think Progress picked it up and started pushing Laden’s piece, it met the criteria for being widely published.
I strongly agree with your counsel about the difference between Roddy’s words and Laden’s: as he told you, in order to be actionable there has to be a strong likelihood that the hearer of the libel or slander will believe what he is being told. Things that are deliberately said as nasty insults, and intended to be nothing more than that are intentionally protected. (same kind of test applies to the concept of threats; they have to be believable in order to qualify)