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.
See if you can get some law students or recent grads looking to make a name for themselves on the cheap. I’d hate to see you waste your hard earned money on it. I’m sure a lot of us would chip in for some crowd funding of a legal challenge.
Have your counsel write a cease and desist warning letter to National Geographic who is the primary provider and Laden. Note the details about your site – its readership, ranking and worldwide reach. Demand a public admission of the wrongdoing – NOT an apology.
NatGeo will wave their arms about and say they are not responsible for user content but it is highly likely they will take some action.
While all of us would support legal action should you choose that path I would not waste the resources past a letter on a pimple like Laden.
Per:
It is a bit of a ‘wow’, but I think it shows that he uses “skeptic” in a peculiar way. Either that, or he thinks one can with certainty say that the photo shows an unequivocal falsity. (So not reasonable to be ‘skeptical’ – as that included the possibility of it being true – but only denouncing it from the start.)
That, alone, is an interesting thing. How can someone judge veracity of the claim of ET diatoms without the provenance of the sample? Only by a preconceived bias… (Or a prolonged survey of space that has not been done…)
In essence, it looks like he thinks the only valid behaviour is derision of the claim of ET life based on no evidence… Which is ‘exactly wrong’.
The right approach is to say (as you did) ~’Nice rock with a diatom thing in it. Prove it isn’t just a dirty earth rock.’
BTW, I’d not sue.
1) “Life is too short to drink bad wine.”
2) You can’t fix a broken mental process via suit. (So, for example, you can not fix a God Complex via suit.) You will not change him, nor his behaviours.
3) Never forget “discovery”.
4) There would be thousands of NGO funded minions looking for cause for counter suit.
4b) Dealing with that would be a PITA. See #1.
So a nice letter to Nat. Geo. asking for a retraction seems in order. (Reminding them of their ‘involvement’ so they can ‘explain’ things to him…)
Anthony Watts says:
January 18, 2013 at 7:18 pm
Wow.
http://storify.com/Kieran_Madden/conversation-with-idebunkforme-gregladen-and-kiera
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Laden’s last comment on that is just way over the top. I’ve changed my mind, You shouldn’t sue and demand a public appology, you should take your title on this article literally and ask for his pants as part of the settlement. 🙂
Anthony, I voted for suing him, not to ‘make an example of him’, but because it is the right thing to do to redress their bullying. Laden is the author, but National Geographic are the culprits who published and distributed the smear – and NG will continue to publish myth, fiction and smears until they are exposed and dicredited. I subscribed for 32 years, but send my last notice back with the comment that “until you return to factual science i have no need of your magazine”.
Mann is suing on far shakier grounds, but that’s OK as he is a warmist …
Heartland has disappointed by not suing Gleick (so the AGU then awards his ‘victory’, did it not?)
Appeasement does not work with bullies, the death-dealing Parncutt’s, imtellectually challenged cognitive scientists and rent-seekers as we threaten their revenue stream by exposing their pseudo-science as a false god. What would have happened if some real scientists had exposed eugenics as rubbish before it lead to the Holocaust?
You will be harmed by NOT suing as your appeasement will demonstrate that you, as a leading climate realist are weak and unwilling to take on Big Scary NG and its thugs and this will only embolden them. Appeasement lead to WW2, so let us fight back by not appeasing them now.
No. It’s a bad idea. Don’t let anger, however justified, sway your decision.
Laden has exposed himself as a liar. Anybody who reads both your articles can see that. His subsequent posts continue to destroy his credibility.
[For those who missed this earlier in the thread]
http://storify.com/Kieran_Madden/conversation-with-idebunkforme-gregladen-and-kiera
Let him dig his hole deeper. Don’t climb in there with him.
By all means though, ask for retractions or the right of reply. If they refuse, publish their response here. Put their integrity under the microscope and look for signs of life.
Dear Mr. Watts,
Lawsuits can be very very draining. They can consume a lot of your energy and peace of mind.
I was once involved in a lawsuit. Not only did I win, the court made the other side pay all my legal fees. So in bullfight terms, I got awarded both ears and the tail.
But it was one of the most miserable, angry, tense, rage-filled episodes in my entire life.
Think very long and hard before you embark on an enterprise of that sort, which will almost certainly unsettle your peace of mind.
Anthony Watts says:
January 18, 2013 at 7:18 pm
After reading that exchange, I stand by my prior recommendation that maximum exposure of this Greg Lade character is the best choice in this situation because it easily shows he’s an idiot.
And I use the term “idiot” to describe Laden on purpose because it is an accurate description; the definition is:
An idiot, dolt, or dullard is a mentally deficient person, or someone who acts in a self-defeating or significantly counterproductive way.
Let’s keep the spotlight shining. It is far cheaper and more effective than an expensive law suit.
Anthony Watts says: January 18, 2013 at 7:18 pm
Wow, indeed! Laden takes the Lew-road™ … or maybe …Laden lured by Lew’s lapses into lemming-like low-life.
OK, OK … I’ll get my coat 🙂
Do you know why New Jersey has more garbage dumps and New York has more lawyers?
New Jersey got first choice.
How bad are you hurt by the pig’s tusks? Before and after talking to the lawyer that is?
Anthony, you pretty much have to put his blog on the ‘unreliable’ list above, with a qualifying statement below. Link the story as appropriate.
This serves as a permanent warning to others.
I support the suggestion to demand an apology which should also be linked to the rating.
Anthony:
It is your decision, but if it were me I would turn the other cheek knowing that the truth and justice will someday come. Best wishes, and I will support your decision regardless of what you decide.
Yes Mr Watts – Sue. I was of two minds till I read your final comments about how the law defines what “a reasonable person” might think…and Laden’s posting was clearly calculated to mislead the reader, and malign your bona fides.
Regards the CP ‘barnyard jokes’, there was plenty more there, about you and others, that in another context would be clearly litigable, containing as it does blatant mendacious falsehoods, but it’s also clear that entire piece was ‘meant’ to be over the top ‘humour’, catering to the most unserious and ignorant of their readership for the most part; those who’d likely not notice either way, let alone respond to accuracy on the issues. More “hating” of course, by it’s very nature, but a sufficient screen – as “entertainment” – to make any pursuit make the pursuer appear ‘thin-skinned’; – a reasonable person would not take the information presented as accurate.
It’s unfortunate of course, because the self-evident arrogance of Mike Roddy, et. al., – the assumption of the unassailable righteousness of their cause, is, admittedly, galling. A good lesson for all of us, perhaps, when we approach these issues, ie discussing Mann and the ClimateGate team, and the many others riding the CAWG gravy-train (the AlGore doesn’t count, he invites parody by his very being) – we must be very precise and accurate and generally have the patience to ‘keep to the facts’.
Laden, as said, another matter, the more so as he writes under the NG banner, a position I believe his actions may have made, short lived.
Plus, lets face it. The MSM loves litigation, and it may therefore drive more visitors to the freshwater spring of climate information here at WUWT – whereas what’s at Laden’s site? Boredom and narcissism.
Sue him for a buck, a full unequivocal apology and retraction, and full costs (yours, too!)
(the latter being very important – these things suck up emotional energy, and time)
Anthony, an apology would be meaningless. If you have to ask, they don’t care. Period. You need a public admission of wrongdoing. If you cannot get that from Laden or NatGeo, then get counsel and defend yourself. Until you take a bully to the woodshed, they keep pestering you.
Publicly addressing the question (of whether or not to sue) is granting Mr Laden an implied right to be taken seriously. He does not deserve it! Actually suing would compound this error.
Other commenters have rightly pointed out the time and effort you will be forced to expend. Even if you win handsomely you will probably find that the time spent achieving this will feel wasted.
If you are naturally combative and litigious, and relish the prospect of enriching legal counsel as you squash this bug … go for it! Do you really care enough to want an apology — let alone, damages?
I recommend that you just drop this rubbish and move on.
Wow – just read the Keiran Madden tweets. Might reconsider my ‘sue him’ vote – he’s clearly got self-esteem issues, and is about to have a ‘crisis’ (read: – self-destructing). Might be good to just ‘stand clear’ till the dust settles.
Send him a letter from a lawyer only if you can get someone to do it pro bono. It’s not going to change anything because you’re dealing with true believers for whom the life and death of the earth is in the balance.
This is the sort of lawsuit that makes a real difference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aryan_Nations#Shooting_and_lawsuit
What I’m saying is that if some organization beats the living daylights out of you, then you might be able to sue them for enough money to make a difference. Otherwise it’s just the lawyers who are happy.
Demand a retraction and admission of wrongdoing.. bring Nat Geo into it as well – I can’t imagine them NOT wanting to distance themselves from him after that last tweet.
I voted to sue, but like some others on reflection Bob Tisdale’s approach is better. Happy to contribute to a fighting fund though.
frag him… sue him into the ground
Dear Anthony, have you read Sun Tze’s “The Art of War”?
In my (obviously arrogant) opinion, the only “high road” one can take in this case is to sue; take the high road of public scrutiny, and drag the public up there with you. The truth has been stifled for too long in this debate, and the truth should be the ultimate power. It is the right thing morally and ethically to put the facts in evidence for all to see.
You’re winning anyway, Anthony. So why go to the the expense and angst of a lawsuit?
Yes, you’d get publicity but … at what cost to your personal eqilibrium and finances?
I didn’t read all the comments so I don’t know how the majority has / have (invitation to our resident grammarians to comment) answered your question, but I’d advise no. As I said, you’re winning anyway.
oMan @Jan 18,2;08pm,
Thanks for your consideration of my comment. My main concern is of blogging becoming litigious and having a chilling effect on bloggers. This could lead to a loss of a better understanding of blogger’s views and the fun of lambasting them in comments when they go over the top.
bob neal @jan 18,4:15pm:
Nat Geo might want to consider those idea’s on their own merits, along with severing their association with a certain blogger, also on its own merits.
Nothing ever ‘watertight’ in legal action…
Leave the pratt alone