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.
Do you really want Greg Laden’s pants?
I would get more specific guidance from your lawyer about how the false light tort applies to a public figure. You have done great work but the result of that work is that you pretty clearly meet the criteria of a public figure (at least in the arena of the climate debates) and no longer have all the privacy protections that a less renowned citizen might enjoy. If ‘public figure’ is a factor in the false light analysis as it is in other defamation claims, it would significantly raise the level of “offensiveness” that would need to be demonstrated before it would make a difference. My guess is that even if you proved all the facts, the court would award no penalties under the public figure doctrine.
Legal action would likely cost a lot of your time and money with no real satisfaction in the end. (The usual outcome with lawyers and courts) Keep hammering the point here and save yourself a lot of grief.
Not a fan of lawyers. Threaten him with a lawsuit and demand the most grovelling apology and retraction. A real grovelling apology, not the pathetic self-justifying retraction he barely managed to construct after l’affair Tallbloke. If he refuses, poll again.
Actually, on second thought I think I’m for more of a middle of the road direction too. Use a lawyer to demand a full page explanation and retraction from National Geographic in the magazine and on their website, including on Laden’s blog, while threatening to sue. If you don’t get redress this way, then go for it. As a farmer who has had to deal with a little stupidity and obstinacy on the part of a power company and an oil company, I now the power a mere law firm’s letter head can have. All the best to you.
The case is open and shut. I suspect the mere possibility of such a clear action against a palpably wrong posting would get Nat Geo to take appropriate action. One you might consider requesting is having Laden’s blog permanently removed from Science blogs. You have a lot of leverage with such a clear case. Use it to maximum effect.
Anthony I voted sue and not just because of Laden but mostly as a warning to the rest of the alarmists to keep the stories accurate and avoid smear pieces. In other words keep it about the science.
I too would contribute to a legal fund if needed.
Have voted for legal action but like Bob Tisdale’s position better.
I “know”, not “now”.
Short answer: no
Longer answer: your time is much more valuable spent on other things.
Sue with maximum publicity.
The habit of casual lying by the green/renewable/climate change movement has to be halted.
Ask for donations. I’ll tip some in. For a share of the costs and damages.
I am not at all sure about this one, Anthony. I rather think we need to see what happens re: mann’s fraudsuits, errr, lawsuits. That, and methinks one like laden would happily run with this as an example of ‘scientists being harrassed and threatened.’ A win for you, does not neccesarily add up to a positive in the eyes of the badly-mislead public.
Yes please!
Some bimbo owes me $30k (court ordered). I doubt I will ever see a penny of it. So go for the apology, but you set the venue it is to be made.
The main reason you should sue him is that if you don’t. this Laden guy and his likes will continue with these smears against you. Once they are hurt financially, they will be more cautious. Another reason is that if you did this to him, he would certainly sue you. If you don’t sue, these people will think you are a softie, and they will go on and on and on.
As much as he deserves it, take the high road. Lead by example. Admonish & move on.
Although you might win in court, I have seen the toll these sorts of things have taken on people – even if they “win”, they still lose , as the process takes a huge toll on them mentally & emotionally. Would hate to see you be in that condition.
You know the answer already – don’t “take the high road”, simply stay on it.
Ayone reading on his blog will already think (used in the loosest possible sense) as he does anyway, so no real harm has been done – your reputation amongst the fools that follow him can hardly be made worse, can it?
All that suing will achieve is to draw attention to his typically idiotic post. So ignore it and deny him the oxygen of publicity.
Anthony,
If you can get Pro Bono legal representation, I would send the “We intend to sue” letter, offer them–and here I mean National Geographic AND Laden–the opportunity to avoid a full suit in court by publishing and widely distributing — both web and Twitter or whatever — a full apology and withdrawl of false claims — and paying punitive damages of $1.00 each.
This combines High Road with Firmness — or as we say in the religious world, marries Mercy to Justice.
No. You are already stretched to thin. Stick to the science. It’s what you do best. Types like Laden are losing their minds because they are losing the argument. Don’t turn him into a martyr.
Anthony, The heart says “Sue the pants off the *$#&$”.
But, I believe the proper way is to demand a full and and public apology of him in his site and on all sites this was mentioned.
If he refuses, then you can threat with a suit. Again, the penalty should be apology and admitting he has done wrong. (And to cover the law suit naturally).
Sue.
Insist on a public apology as a condition for settlement. Make it explicit in the settlement terms that you are the sole judge of the adequacy of any apology.
Legal action is costly, risky and time consuming. Why waste your efforts when it will not change the mind of anyone. Go for an aplology and ask that he makes a large donation to “Save the Polar bears charity” or some such.
Log it for next time. He really has nothing to lose and although I would love to NG sued to death it won’t happen. Treat him with the contempt he deserves.
Who is Greg Laden?
Seriously, this man is almost completely unknown. I looked at his site about a year ago when some other dumb** thing he wrote was mentioned here on WUWT. I did not bother, even this week, to look again.
One of Garth Brook’s friends, Dan Roberts, explained to Garth: “Grace is when God gives us what we don’t deserve and mercy is when God doesn’t give us what we do deserve.” Mercy is preferred for this man.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
**dumb, being the family-friendly term. I do think he needs counseling or therapy.
I vote for Don’t Sue. Laden is a distraction: a badly-trained puppy irritating your ankles while you are out slaying dragons.