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
Australis says: January 19, 2013 at 6:13 am
I agree with the former; but, while I’d like to believe the latter, history – unfortunately – has shown otherwise. The “resilience” of the scourge of Holocaust denial is an example. Its roots go back to the early years immediately following WWII and – notwithstanding several high profile trials in the post-Nuremberg intervening years (e.g. Eichmann, Zundel, Keegstra) – it survived and continues to rear its ugly head in far too many forums and nations. Even David Irving’s resounding self-defeat (in three courts!) in his libel suit (Irving v. Penguin Books and Deborah Lipstadt) has not staunched the flow:
What is defeating climate alarmism, IMHO, is that – thanks to the tremendous efforts of Watts, McIntyre, Lindzen, Laframboise, Montford, Curry, Pielke and others – more and more people are refusing to passively and unquestioningly accept the MSM promulgated word of climatologists (and of course the IPCC) as gospel. They are choosing to think for themselves. And, the increasing realization of the exorbitant cost of implementing the proposed “solutions” is probably having a highly significant effect, as well 🙂
However, just as – for the most part – Holocaust denial has morphed into mindless anti-Semitism and/or Israel-bashing and/or pure unadulterated Jew-hating/baiting (its “ideologically skewed” roots), ideologically dedicated alarmists will, I suspect, transfer their advocacy and activism to the latest and greatest “scare”: Can you say, “Biodiversity” and/or “sustainable development”?!
The “CO2–>climate change” song may (very soon) be over, but the melody lingers on 🙁
Again, just cool it. Save yourself the aggravation, the expense, the hassle, just laugh it off. No one in their right mind will take this Laden character seriously.
In the 19th century, in Germany, things like these were often sorted out in duels. Before challenging one’s opponent, one would ask: Is he “satisfaktionsfaehig” – is he a suitable, worthy opponent, a man of honour? If he was not, a gentleman would just forget about it and nevertheless consider his own honour intact.
It is time to hold those accountable for their perverse behavior. I say sue…for WATT that is worth.
“The denialists are committing crimes against humanity, surely it’s time for legislation to close these sites down’.”
=============================================================
That pesky Bill of Rights with it’s Freedom of the Press. If we just did away with The Bill of Rights and all other limits on Government we could finally achieve Heaven on Earth! /sarc off
Before this article the only time I had heard of Greg Laden was when someone posted a link on WUWT to comments on his blog as the commenter had “ranted” in rather colourful language. Having seen his blog the once I have no intention to return there.
What Greg Laden has done was deceitful and pathetic. What is the point of taking legal action against the pathetic?
My humble suggestion would be to write to National Geographic (if they are the blog editors) and merely point out what he has done and suggest a retraction. If they don’t reply and retract just highlight the lack of action on WUWT and move on. Anything else will take some of your time and effort away from this wonderful resource, in some respects it already has (with 430 comments and counting!).
I agree with the sensible comments of Dale McIntyre and Adam above.
Keep up the good work on useful science (with occasional humour). If it was someone you can take seriously or was viewed as a serious scientist my view may have been different.
Anthony,
You should do whatever you think best. However, to those who say, no one will believe these people, you have your honor, etc etc, I refer you to one of the greatest quotes from STTNG:
“They invade our space, and we fall back. They assimilate entire worlds, and we fall back. Not again. The line must be drawn here! This far and no further! And I will make them pay for what they’ve done!”
The people Anthony and other “deniers” are dealing with will use any and every means at their disposal to disparage, undermine, ridicule, cause harm to, etc. They have called for them to be rounded up, locked up, blown up etc. The media is complicit in these attempts. The only way to stop them is to hit them back, hard. A lie first uttered may be forgotten, but a lie repeated often can become the truth.
Yeah, sue him into economic ruin.
No matter that you suffered no real damage-he hurt your feelings.
Ruin his life, his business, his whole family. For generations!!!
It’s the American WAY!
Gunga Din says: “That pesky Bill of Rights with it’s Freedom of the Press. If we just did away with The Bill of Rights and all other limits on Government …”
No need to do away with all of them. Slow erosion of 2nd Amendment will make rest of Amendments irrelevant.
We are quickly becoming herded sheep that will fear government’s wolves.
Barbee says:
“No matter that you suffered no real damage”
That is not for you to say.
And:
“Ruin his life, his business, his whole family. For generations!!!”
On that we can agree [even though I would advise against a lawsuit].
I generally do not financially support others. However, the importance of truthful statements accuracy of statement wrt AGW on both skeptic and advocate cannot be overstated. The fate of the world’s economy is directly tied the actions to “mitigate” AGW. Therefore, I will happily donate to a legal fund if you sue him.
Joe says:
January 19, 2013 at 5:32 am
———————————-
REPLY: I disagree, see my reply to the comment below – Anthony
———————————-
Fair comment, Anthony, and I must admit I’d find a genuine comparison along those lines a bit of a stretch (to say the least). My real point was that it’s at least possible to attempt support of such a claim using semantics, unlike their wild assertions of “denier”, “anti-science” and so on.
Terrorism isn’t about violence, it’s about instilling fear to get your own way. Violence just happens to be the most effective and accessible way to engender fear in most cases. Fear (of catastrophe) and intimidation (academic or otherwise) ARE the weapons of choice for the AGW protagonists when trying to elicit compliance.
That said, fear and intimidation are also the tools of the common playground bully, which would be a far more apposite comparison to have made.
Incidentally, Zoot, I fully take your point about the Binladens and honestly don’t see how Usama’s actions should reflect on them any more than they should on any other member of his race or religion. For clarification, that means that there should be NO reflection at all!
I can’t see what to sue over, this is rather petty. All that has been one is that it was pointed out that you didn’t spot a bogus science story.
Interesting to note that you won’t publish Laden’s comments.
This wreaks of somebody beating their chest and trying to make people scared to disagree with you on the internet… quite pathetic.
[Reply: Laden’s comments were posted, along with links. — mod.]
Darren Potter says:
January 19, 2013 at 1:17 pm
Gunga Din says: “That pesky Bill of Rights with it’s Freedom of the Press. If we just did away with The Bill of Rights and all other limits on Government …”
DP: No need to do away with all of them. Slow erosion of 2nd Amendment will make rest of Amendments irrelevant.
We are quickly becoming herded sheep that will fear government’s wolves.
=================================================================
Perhaps replace “irrelevant” with “undefendable”?
sarc on/ Cheer up. Maybe they’ll stop at banning barrel rifling. /sarc off
http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2013/01/18/anthony-watts-is-threatening-to-sue-me/
His followers are out in force, by my reading of the comments.
It would appear, that he has conceded the global warming myth, and has begun to attack any percieved weakness, of those that shattered his world-view.
It ain’t gonna be pretty.
Yes, certainly you should sue. You would almost surely lose, for reasons well explained on the legal site you link to, but hey, lawyers need the money, and the rest of us need the entertainment.
@u.k.(us) Jan 19 2:39 said:
“His followers are out in force, by my reading of the comments.”
Was that tongue in cheek, mate? I went and had a gander and cracked up: Laden’s blog article has been up for about a day and has attracted only 15 comments (3 of which are Laden’s ranting responses!)
Environmental activists regularly make claims that the simplest checking would falsify. For example, mentioning cougars, a group called Raincoast Conservation claimed that cougars were an endangered species because their favourite food on Vancouver Island was becoming scarce. (Well, just maybe, as the deer are in town where food is better, predators fewer, and movement easier – though cougars are increasingly seen in town. 😉 Just joking, I think cougar are out there, but they have a long reputation for being stealthy. As part of their claim Raincoast Conservation referred to the Tonasgass forest in AK – except cougars are rare that far north, the deer predator there is spelled W O L F.
And David Suzuki removed a hockey stick from prominence on his web site after I got a letter in a newspaper challenging it, and later removed attacks on fish farms after Vivian Krause nailed him on a blog.
They have a habit of making claims they don’t investigate. Perhaps it is the Marxist/Post-Modernist type of philosophy that teaches that words make reality, more likely just infantile behaviour. (Oh, unfair to infants – they are learning.
(John Ridpath’s lecture on the mind points out that their frustration comes from their feeling of hopelessness as they realize their method of obtaining knowledge isn’t working. They’ve gone wrong on a basic, then built on that bad foundation.)
Or maybe just bad psychology. Seems more common today – in the Victoria BC area a bus driver was assaulted because he told a young man to use the back door to exit (that being the normal exit door) because the driver was helping a handicapped customer at the front door (that being the door at the end of the bus that kneels, the end equipped with a wheelchair ramp). Sickos everywhere.
Much trash on the Internet as you know, his Harvard degree gets him listened to more I suppose even though he is trash.
I’d vote to not get involved in a lawsuit. I’ve been in a couple. They consume a lot of your mind and time, they are unpredictable, and you do much more good to concentrate on this blog and on your other activities. So much so, in fact, that to engage in a lawsuit might be comforting not to Greg Laden specifically, but to the other Greg Laden’s out there.
I voted for sue — but after reading the many replies I just dont know. The point that others made that most effected my opinion was — this will take up a lot of your time. In two more weeks this story will be forgotten — but a lawsuit could keep you entangled for years.
Go after NG and see if you can get Laden dumped. One hopes that they have al least some standards left there.
Yeah, i guess it really is a wise move to avoid all lawyers.
Eugene WR Gallun
Suing critics is one of the signs of being a crackpot. It doesn’t matter if it’s done by Michael Mann or by you.
Wow, a look at the latest posting by laden shows some real “science heavyweights” chiming in (and in some cases, spreading the lie around):
Eric Grimsrud (aka “the Grandpa”)
Russell Seitz (adding to the lie at the at the ever-clever vvatts site)
William M. Connolley (aka “The Weasel”)
Josh Halpern (aka “The Rabett”), at the ever popular Rabett Run
Seems like Anthony should change his lawsuit to Laden et. al.
One additional point that I’ve not yet seen made here is the following.
The question of whether or not the scientific study under discussion is bogus is absolutely a matter of opinion. No reasonable person can doubt that. It is an indisputible (and undisputed) fact that presently, any statement regarding the study’s bogosity is a pure opinion, and not a statement of fact. I remind again that this fact is undisputed by any party to this matter (including Anthony) and by any commentator about the matter.
According to the website Anthony linked to (Citizen Media Law), the following which is found in one of their pages on defamation suits also applies to D.C. false light cases …
The right to speak guaranteed by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution includes the right to voice opinions, criticize others, and comment on matters of public interest. [. . .] accordingly, you can safely state your opinion that others are inept, stupid, [. . .] etc. even though these statements might hurt the subject’s feelings. Such terms represent what is called “pure opinions” because they can’t be proven true or false. As a result, they cannot form the basis for a defamation claim.
(My bold.)
Fight smart, Anthony.
Respectfully,
RTF
REPLY: Thanks for that, the issue is mainly that Mr. Laden purposely manipulated the presentation of information and presented it in a way that produced a “false light”. – Anthony
The only people who can win here are the lawyers and the doctors. Even if you get an order for costs you will still be substantially out of pocket. Like the generous readers here, Laden’s fans will also contribute to his war chest, so he won’t lose a cent of his own money.
Laden is demonstrating a childish and infantile, as well as incoherent, reasoning ability in the tweet exchange. If he is also considered, along with the Heartland id thief, a great example of modern science then science as an enterprise is seriously off track.
I find some of the responses of his supporters equally incoherent. Science is in trouble, as those indicators demonstrate.
I have a post on this very subject coming up.
Anthony,
After reading more from Laden and his supporters, I think suing them may be a wasted opportunity. Instead keep grinding on them from the high ground. Let the Manniac try and use the courts to hide from his critics. And encourage Laden to attract as many disreputable unethical and irrational supporters as possible. Think of how “The Caine Mutiny” strategy of simply letting the Captain say what was on his mind was so effective.