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.
Anthony, the only people who will make money for certain are the lawyers. Ask Nat Geo to post your rebuttal on Greg Laden’s blog. That would frost Laden.
I think i can hear a faint squeaking sound in the distance,
that of a clenching sphincter.
Mr Laden must be reading this post.
I voted for the grovelling apology..lawyers are rich enough already.
Warren Meyer makes some very good points.
In my opinion, if you take no action, then that will encourage sleazy people like Laden to fabricate even more smears. You must do something…
Words (simplified greatly, admittedly) to live by:
“Trust but verify” and
“File but settle”.
.
1 You own one-to-one request for a full apology – wait and see.
2 A lawyer’s letter demanding same by time limit .
3 Discuss with lawyer if unresolved
4 Ponder on it.
5 Decide.
National Geographic has been hi-jacked by enviro-nutbars for years. They kept the original mission statement and added some crap about the environment. All their stories are slanted to pontificate against man. Years ago they did a story on gold with wonderful photos of glittering gold and the people who mine it, work it, and buy it, and I loved it. Not too long ago they did another story on gold, this time with dreary dirty photos of the worst of the worse gold mines in the worst places on the planet, pontificating on how man is destroying the planet. To say they’ve abandoned their original purpose is putting it mildly. I say sue them. I’ve had enough of their propaganda.
Although I am for proceeding with some sort of legal action, It’s not my nickel. Laden seems to be a bad tempered snarky type and his “blog” basically a piece o’crap so any mud that can be cast in his direction I am all for. But as I said earlier, it’s not my nickel.
My 4 cts (inflation)
If you sue the pants off him and win, so you’ll have a pair of pants. They are liar pants, so ff course they will be on fire. What are you going to do with a pair of burning pants?
Sue? Sue? The very least Anthony you should be demanding staisfaction at dawn from 20 paces away a’la The Big Country! I of course place you firmly in the Gregory Peck role! Is this guy any relation to the “other” Laden”, recently departed this Earth at the hands of AMerican experts! 😉
The real questions are: What will you gain if you win? What will you have to sacrifice to win? What will you lose if you don’t win? Does the reward outweigh the risks?
I say you shouldn’t sue, just complain loudly to force an apology. If you sue, Greg Laden can claim to be a martyr and claim that he must have hit a nerve to provoke such a reaction. However if you complain loudly then Greg Laden’s reputation is the one that will take a hit. Talk to anyone who listen and enlist the legion here on WUWT to flood NatGeo with complaints daily. If they get thousands of emails every day, they cannot ignore it forever.
Greg Laden didn’t just make a one-time blunder. He habitually slanders. Sue if you
think you have a good chance of winning.
Anthony:
I have not voted because I am not a lawyer and not an American so I am not competent to assess the issue of whether you should sue Laden in a US Court.
However, more than a decade ago I first attempted to see if I could sue a blogger who had defamed me. He was an Australian not resident in the UK as I am, and the legal advice was to not sue. The case would cost a fortune so be a Pyrrhic victory at best. Later I considered a case against a blogger who uses a false name for his blog and the legal advice was to not sue although that was different from here where the identity of the blogger cannot be disputed.
The legal advice in those cases cost me money and gained me nothing except the knowledge that it is usually best to ignore defamations on blogs.
So, I will not vote. But if it turns out that you need a legal fund then I will contribute.
Richard
Before you make a decision, I suggest you contact Natioanl Geographic and ask if they stand behind Laden’s claims – and, if so, on what basis.
The reason they slander you is you are right; you are winning. You’ll only be doing it for the cause and I doubt the angst will be worth the reward. Agree with Warren Meyer.
None of the above.
Have your Lawyers write a letter to NatGeo outlining the violations and appealing to NatGeo’s desire to avoid a scandal to persuade some action on their part that furthers the debate to a wider market. Basically, an apology from him on merely his blog isn’t good enough the apology must be more widely distributed and backed by the full NatGeo collection of media outlets. Yes, a full page apology in NatGeo magazine outlining the facts (approved by you of course) and a few 30 second commercials at various air times (etc.) should do the trick.
If you ignore vicious attacks on your reputation, they just get worse. And suing someone is something they can never deny happened, while a printed apology can get lost over time.
(From the other side of the pond, where it’s snowing hard). No, Anthony, I think you should not sue.
This is about moral high ground, no? And if the “false light” doctrine had the moral high ground, it would be law in all states, no?
Besides, do you really want to try to use a law which doesn’t apply where the defendant lives? How would you feel about being sued under (for example) North Korean law?
Please ignore the bloodhounds, and carry on doing what you do best – skewering our enemies with facts.
Cheers,
Neil
Why waste time & effort on a proven liar?
Just preserve your “threat” to sue; it prolongs his anxiety.
Why does this remind me of:
First they came for the socialists,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a Jew.
Then they came for me,
and there was no one left to speak for me.
and:
All it takes for evil to flourish is for good men to do nothing.
Do the right thing.
First make an official request for retraction and apology by; certified, return receipt requested US mail from all parties. If it isn’t forth coming, make the decision based on: How many years this could take in the chosen jurisdiction (ask the lawyers).
I cannot make a decision with respect to legal action without asking a few questions first Anthony.
Did you suffer any anxiety as a result of the falsehoods that were conveyed?
Do you feel that the false information conveyed impacted you and or your business negatively?
Did the assault on your credibility create undo apprehension on your part?
(list truncated for brevity)
If you answer “yes” to any of the above questions, legal action is justified up to and including punative damages as part there of.
Let it slide. You might lose, and it could prove expensive.
Anthony, I think this is really something for you to answer/decide personally – though I totally agree with the idea of asking for others opinion. I don’t doubt that resources could be raised to fund a lawsuit but I am with some of the other commentors – along the lines of ‘ask for full written and an equally disemminated/exposed apology’ and if he refuses, then sue.
I’m not a fan of ‘turn the other cheek’ – but I am a fan of giving a wrongdoer the chance to admit the error of their ways BEFORE giving them the big smackdown! To me, that is the most decent and fairest way forward. IMHO
Kev
No, it would be an overreaction to a rather silly discussion and will simply provide him the attention he seeks, albeit a little more than he expected – probably attention seeking was the reason he commented twice on the issue in the first place. And it will become a side show not related to the whole CAGW issue, probably with lots of discussion about creationism and UFOs.
It would in fact be a bad move in my humble opinion.
I’d save time and energy for bigger battles.