Reader poll – should I sue the pants off Greg Laden?

This Stoat guy is a real hoot. The pattern of wack job thinking in the climate kook camp is entertaining. I wonder how long the Stoat will allow this comment:
“Actually, Watts is considering the facts of the case, and possible legal options, This separates Watts from Laden, Gleick and, apparently, you. He has not threatened a law suit at this time. I am not surprised that a climate extremist would have difficulty applying thinking processes in a rational manner. That failure seems an integral part of sustaining belief in a climate crisis.”

Yes Anthony, sue the mongrel. He probably wouldn’t mean what he said if you asked for a retraction assuming he listened to you. Better to make an example of him. HFTC.

Digging their hole.

It’s probably best to kick this one to the curb as soon as is practical. Ladin’s blog has already gotten a huge publicity windfall, and there’s no need to give him any more PR. Once this dies down, he’ll be back to trying to attract and keep readers based on how interesting his writings are, and the sooner that happens, the better. Here are some things that would come up. These are not all my opinions, but these are things that I would expect to come up in any court case.
First, the positions: Ladin is staking out the position that it is foolish to give any consideration whatsoever to the claims of extraterrestrial life found on a rock. Anthony has given some consideration to these claims, so, Ladin finds this foolish. He bases his opinion on some knowledge of diatoms and on knowledge about the Journal of Cosmology and the author; which might be persuasive if you start with this knowledge alresady. Also: Ladin included a screen shot which showed that Anthony found these claims to be interesting, and at least somehow possible, but which left out the strong disclaimer about extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary proof, etc.
So, Ladin can show that he never portrayed Anthony as simply taking these claims at face value, and that the omitted text does not change his contention that Anthony considered the claims at all (Ladin thinks this is foolish) rather than rejecting them at first sight. Anthony feels that the omitted text shows his open-minded, but highly skeptical mindset, and omitting it paints a false picture.
So: look for Ladin’s lawyers to argue that Ladin was making his own point, and that writers always have to choose their quotes somehow. Ladin chose to illustrate his own point, not to illustrate a different point that he should have anticipated Anthony wanting to make. In other words, Ladin’s lawyers would say that the missing text expressing healthy skepticism was either tangential, or at best, incidental to what Ladin was saying, and that readers could figure this out for themselves. Now, to be sure, there are ways that another lawyer could reply to this, for, say, $500 per hour. Is it worth it?
Then, there’s the complaint of “false light.” From the link above, about this in DC:
http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-guide/district-columbia-false-light
we see that for a public figure to win in such a claim, they have to show actual malice, rather than negligence. Looking at the previous paragraph, a argument of “careless writing” could be brought as a defense, and, if it were accepted, it might well prevail. In other words, “I was trying to write about considering that story at all, not to write about whether the plaintiff was skeptical” could very well win the day for for the defendant.
“False light” is the idea that a statement was made, to the public, about the defendant, that “would be highly offensive to a reasonable person.” Oh, Boy. For a person who lives a private life, out of the spotlight, you can see how this legal doctrine could be useful, if some reporter plucks them from the crowd and holds them up to ridicule, But, Anthony, you are already well-known in the blogosphere of climate science, you runs a well-known, widely-read blog, in which the language gets heated from time to time. You will be looked at differently. The legal reasoning would be that a “reasonable person” might have (and has to have) a thicker skin when they publish strong opinions on controversial subjects. (Just how much thicker, could be worked out in court, at tremendous expense.)
Outside the courtroom, look for comments like, “Offended? It caused distress? He’s suing for butthurt in the first degree, with a side order of BAW!” Inside the courtroom, picture yourself on the witness stand, when an opposing lawyer hands you a calendar full of cartoons, names the scientists to whom you sent it, and asks if you are ready to prove that there are no errors of fact, including errors of omission, in any of the cartoons. (Quite possibly, you can. It could cost a lot.) They will read back your own posts showing that the cartoon thing was all in good fun, and ask why it is that these are, presumably, less offensive than Ladin leaving a paragraph out of a quote which would have supported your point, but had little to do with the point that Ladin was [purportedly] trying to make. Also, imagine a stack of blog posts, by yourself and possibly others, which show someone else in a less-than-flattering light, and which have been attacked at some point for cherry-picking or other errors, Then, you get to explain why this case is different. Perhaps it’s possible, with a dedicated legal team and a truly stupendous amont of money. After that, outside the courtroom, or even inside, look for comments like “the bully is a crybaby,” and “he can dish it out, but he can’t take it.”
All of these arguments can be answered, and beaten back, at great effort and huge expense, by very talented lawyers. It will be much harder if you are deemed to be a public figure, because then negligence on Ladin’s part (bad writing) doesn’t count. If it’s a truly huge expense, look for Greenpeace, Anonymous, and others to go crawling into everything they can, to see whether any legal help came from the fossil fuel industry (or even whether there’s anything that can be twisted to look that way). Just to store up some sticks to beat you with in the future.
And finally, imagine making all these arguments in front of a jury containing, say, two climate skeptics, two warmists, two undecided people, and six who don’t know and don’t give a damn. Try arguing that various sharp criticisms against various climate scientists were OK because the scientists were wrong, to a jury of which half the members not only don’t know whether the scientists were wrong or not, but also don’t care, and will just zone out if you try to explain it to them. Insults go one way, insults go the other–what’s the problem, to the one who isn’t listening to the explanation?
It’s not a great bet, even winning can be a loss in many ways, and it could take way too much time and money. That’s a pretty high price to give Greg Ladin some publicity that he can’t seem to stir up for himself just by being interesting.
And, once again, I’m not presenting the above as my own criticisms. But I do think that most or all of these things would come up if this were to go to court, and that would do more harm than any possible good.

Hi Anthony,
If it were me, I’d sue. But I come from the “Don’t get mad, get even” school of thought.
Assuming that you’re reasonably confident about prevailing in court, there are two questions that I’d ask. First, how much of your precious time would this lawsuit consume? And could that same amount of time be spent more productively on some other project?
Second, Mikey M has a reputation for excessive litigiousness. Would you want to be seen in the same light–even if the comparison is unfair?
Best wishes.

mandas says:

January 20, 2013 at 4:54 pm
On 20 January Anthony Watts posted:
Anthony Watts says:
January 20, 2013 at 8:35 am
I find some of the responses of his supporters equally incoherent. Science is in trouble, as those indicators demonstrate.
People in glass houses, huh Tony?

Science is not only in trouble, “mandas”, your sick allegation is completely unfounded. Go back to the deluded frathouse from which you came.
Oh, and have a good day.

Some interesting comments have followed mine, but from them I still can’t clearly tell whether the commenters (including yourself, Anthony) have understood my main point. So I’ll reword it.
Laden’s claim essentially (or at least this is how he will likely portray it in court) is that Anthony is not equipped to see that the study is bogus, and is also not equipped to see that the study is not bogus. This is the case (he will likely argue), not because of any flaw in Anthony, but because nobody is presently equipped to see clearly that the study is bogus. It is an open question … one on which reasonable scientists may disagree (using their minds to form opinions about an uncertain matter). So in other words, there was no special disparagement of Anthony, because presently, we are all equally ill-equipped to see for certain that the study is bogus. We may have opinions that differ from Anthony’s regarding the bogosity, and we may have opinions regarding Anthony’s intelligence or competence that devolve from those opinions of the bogosity. But guess what! Those opinions are constitutionally protected!
The only way I can see that there can be a valid action under the D.C. law as it has been explained by CML is if the statement of bogosity is generally accepted as a fact. And Anthony, not only can you not prove that the study is bogus, it happens that you have argued rather to the contrary in your first post about it. You have clearly stated in several ways that it is not proven to be bogus, which means you fully agree that the question of truth or falsehood or bogosity of that study is a pure opinion.
Probabilities, indeed physical evidence, don’t enter into the equation at all. The only relevant question is, have all of the reasonable people who have looked into it concluded that the study is proven to be bogus, or not?
And if the answer is yes (which it clearly is not, because I haven’t seen anyone argue such, quite the contrary), then Laden’s presentation is protected speech because it is a statement of opinion about Anthony which is based on an assertion of fact which reasonable people agree is a true fact.
But if the answer is no, then that means that Laden’s presentation is based solely on a pure opinion, and thus the presentation is constitionally protected speech for that reason alone.
Either way, Anthony, you lose the case, and I wouldn’t be at all surprised if the judge throws it out in pre-trial because he or she has accepted Laden’s statement about his intent at face value. In other words, I think you only have an actionable case if you can convince a D.C. judge (Did I mention it’s D.C.??) that Laden’s statement in pre-trial about his intent in his statement about you is likely not to be true, and that you are thus entitled to have a jury empaneled to decide that question. Failing that, I think is case is tossed without a trial. So I think it all comes down to the fact that you are contemplating suing in a very “blue” jurisdiction. Because the sole deciding factor will likely be the judge’s assessment of Laden’s pre-trial claims about his intent. I hope I’m wrong, if indeed you are planning to take it all the way.
Richard

Laden is unknown to the wider public. Victory would be just but it is not certain and might have little impact outside of our small group. I suggest that you wait for a bigger fish.