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.
Steve R W says:
January 18, 2013 at 8:49 am
> Take the Monckton approach ….
Hey, how about asking Lord Monkton if he has time to get Laden a real dressing down?
No – much better – how about asking Lord Monkton to write several folks at NatGeo describing to them the sort of blogger they are supporting? Then NatGeo will talk to Laden about it, a setting that Laden can’t very easily blow off, then post Monkton’s complaint and NatGeo’s reply.
None of the above. Time will give you better perspective. I would work with my attorneys as necessary, but wait until just before the statutory limit on such suits to decide whether to file or not.
After seeing how well the “Watts Bots” (either his quote or one of his dedicated readers) and comments like from Joe Public
January 17, 2013
You deliberately underestimate the intelligence of WUWT’s readers.
And, seemingly overestimate the gullibility of your readers.
——————————————–
I take back my sue him vote. I think he and some of his rabid followers have drank too much kool aid. I don’t think it would be worth the emotional investment. And the best you’ll get out of him is a page identifying how he was mis-quoted and didn’t cherry pick anything. Oh wait, he already did that…
Okay, I change my vote after reading the post by Letsgoviking. Good points. Sue
Unfortunately in our society suing has become one of the only ways to truly hold people and organizations accountable. Suing defends yourself from this kind of action today and suing defends you and others from this kind of action in the future.
The fact that the Nation g rag is involved means you should definitely hit hard. I used to love and respect the National g rag, but it has morphed, come under control of environmental liberals and publishes, in my opinion, very slanted stories intending to propagandize a political view point. Maybe if they get hit hard enough it will cause them to watch more carefully what they are responsible for.
Don’t let a lawsuit occupy your time. Iit will be far more effort and bring far less satisfaction than you hope for. You have more important work to do,
When has Steve McIntyre been most effective—-auditing research or auditing the Muir -Russel whitewash?
Why copy the example of Mann, go for the apology.
Wait a minute. I don’t want to see any diversion of time and energy from the best science blog out there and the last best hope for heading off another trillion dollar boondoggle in DC and the UN. It gets personal at that point. Let’s think this one through.
ZootCadillac says:
January 18, 2013 at 8:55 am
addendum:
i just noticed he has already posted about this and is mocking you, daring you in fact. As I said, cut him out and go above his head, have the lawyers do the work.
———————————————————————
Don’t suppose my coment on that post will see light of day 🙁
Joe Horner
Anglesey
January 18, 2013
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
Doesn’t look like a threat to sue to me, looks like asking advice from people who may be affected by any decision he might make.
Incidentally, in comments you may see thay I called you an odious little creep. I stand by that and look forward to hearing from your solicitors 🙂
Sue. But only for so long as it takes to get an apology and prominent retraction from both Laden and NatGeo. Once they’ve done that, you can take the high ground and let by-gones be by-gones. But they must cry “Uncle!” first.
Anthony, think carefully about the toll on you if you pursue this matter. You strike me as the kind of guy who would take it personally and follow it rather than leaving it to the lawyers and sleeping at night.
That is very hard on a man.
Anthony:
I write this in hope of assuaging your feelings.
Please note what has happened.
You put up this article and within 2 hours obtained ~150 replies each supportive of you.
YOU HAVE FRIENDS, LOTS OF FRIENDS.
This Laden freak is a lonely loser spitting his bile in jealousy of you. Please don’t let him get to you. Him and his trivial little blog are not worth the bother of you getting upset at them.
Richard
Sue the irksome little wannabe.
I’d say don’t bother, having made your point here. It would be hard to prove any financial loss. It is true that you don’t have to prove any such loss to win but there would be little to gain in winning having lost little from his behaviour.
The position with Tallbloke was different because he was more of a private individual, a ‘civilian’, and so the incorrect statements about him looked very bad coming from a media figure like Laden.
Furhemore Laden’s statements about Tallbloke implied criminality which was way beyond the picture painted in this case.
Given those two points it was relatively easy to get a swift retraction and clarification for Tallbloke.
In this case the stakes are less high so it could well be worthwhile Laden and his Publishers just playing with you in the expectation that the value of the publicity would likely outweigh the potential cost of resisting your suit.
Still, it is open to you to make the same judgement and go for it.
Any possibility this is a lever with which to flip Nat. Geo?
That would be the better opportunity.
If Nat. Geo. looked into this mess and realized what is going on, perhaps they would look further and be persuaded to examine the notion that ‘the science is good, but doesn’t support the hype.’ Maybe even run a featured article on the matter.
If Nat. Geo. flips on this, the game is up for Laden et. al.
Just my $0.02
No, unless you really need the money.
HI Anthony,
A suit would increase traffic on his web site and give him what he desperately wants. Your web site is a refreshing and honest place to discuss interesting questions. There will be countless others like him that try to ridicule you. Stay above the fray (easy for me to say). Scientific discovery is a marathon, not a sprint. Have a glass of red wine, think about how much many of us enjoy your web site and ideas, and laugh. When I read Laden’s comments it made me think of the old SNL skit with Christopher Walken, ” I have a fee-vah, and the only prescription is more cowbell.” He’s ridiculous…
David
Sorry just one more point, if you allow him to get away with this now can he keep doing this with the full knowledge that you should of stopped him when you had the chance.
So I guess your saying that was a diatom from earth in that photo.
Anthony … gut reaction sue the pants. But that’s not fair as I’m not spending the time & money and whilst “they” deserve a good kicking, to take action against an individual with a family has to be warranted.
So,it did not help when I read Watts … the “denialist” and “anti-science blog”. I’ve been warming people who use this for a while that it is false – and I’ve said “if I had the money I would take action … so if you have the means I should support you”.
But even so, does this pass the test of “he deserves it”. Was it just a mistake … did he get caught up in the moment? You’ve clearly given him a chance to recant as the change by Romm shows (and well done Romm – admitting a mistake is not easy for any of us).
.Did he intentionally falsely misrepresent your article? Did he make false claims about the nature of your moderation? I think the answer is yes.
Does the defence of “Watts is a public celebrite who should have a thick skin” work? Not if he’s been told he was wrong and asked to correct it.
Is he promoting public debate? No, he seems to be hiding views of others and undermining debate.
Sue him.
I’m voting … ignore. Many reasons but Bob has my top one. Even if you are certain to win there is the time, effort and money involved. I’m sure that you have more productive activities to be giving your time to.
I second that. If we sued every Wanker we came across there would be no time in a day for anything else.
Your lawyer needs to write a formal complaint to NatGeo asking for an apology and removing Greg from future writing on ScienceBlogs and making it clear that there is an imminent False Light suit.
Don’t ask for money, ask for your name back (see Ray Donovan).
Gail Combs says:
January 18, 2013 at 9:01 am
“Heck they are ALREADY trying our mock trials!
Test trial convicts fossil fuel bosses of ‘ecocide’
Top lawyers put fossil fuel bosses on trial in the UK’s supreme court in a mock case to explore if ecocide – environmental destruction – could join genocide as a global crime. ”
Well, it’s what Polly Higgins does. She has connections to the Club Of Rome Germany so she’s a tool for the progressive socialist billionaires. Why would they want eco cangaroo courts? To control energy makets and protect their own operations.
Anthony,
Choose your legal battles wisely.
I think from now the alarming AGW ideology will be increasingly threatened by science, so you can expect bigger fish than lowly Laden to smear you; their hatred for scientific critics like WUWT will escalate much more and thus will guarantee bigger targets for suing.
I recommend to not sue Laden. He is an insignificant nothing.
I suggest ‘Demand an apology
and if he fails then take legal action.”Widely showing National Geograpgic is abetting what Laden is doing is enough.
John
Aquila non captit muscas