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.
The best action would be one that causes NatGeo subscriptions and readership to fall off a cliff. Wide distribution of your story might be enough (and likely a lot cheaper for you).
Dont sue him. You can bump into some horrible people in courtrooms, I have heard rumours of one such being haunted by a little fat guy with a funny beard and armed with a hockey stick
One other thing, anybody who says this or that is clear or obvious probably has not spent much time with lawyers or in court arguing technical matters.
It does not work that way.
In normal circumstances, I would say take the high-ground and ignore muppets like Laden. But these are abnormal times, as the shrill gets more desperate, more vitriolic – the only way to stop them appears to be something they understand – money
Cut the money supply, cut the rehetoric
QED – Sue the bastards
Andi
richardscourtney says:
January 18, 2013 at 9:21 am
lots of common sense
—————————————————————————–
This ^^^
Laden is clearly inadequate in some way (intellectually, emotionally, or otherwise) that requires his comments pages to be full of “yes men” support for his, frankly bizarre, rantings. Such people WILL eventually fall by their own hand. Especially when, as in his case, they’re essentially inconsequential buffoons that the world gains nothing from protecting.
The immature boy Laden is a nobody, and his readers are nothing more than a playground clique who’s importance stretches just as far as their own empty heads – in High School movie terms, they’re nothing more than the cheerleaders.
Filing (or even threatening) suit will only reinforce their deluded sense of self-importance.
Your call. I will donate what I can.
BUT this lonely gadfly of doom, at a magazine thats accelerating into obscurity, will be the only one to benefit.
Do you sue a dog for peeing on your leg?
Laden needs your attention, he labours in increasing obscurity and will be fired soon enough.
If you bother to grant these people you attention, there’s a likely-hood this will become the new norm for the hater blogs.National Geographic is desperate for any attention.
Anthony I think your very success and continued calm evenhandedness, will do more to further derange these folk, than any legal action.
Life is too short to take the ravings of losers personally
It’s a blank billboard. What are you going to do with it?
1) Suing doesn’t necissarily raise awarness outside those already engaged in the issue.
I haven’t read all the comments above so I hope I am not just repeating what has already been said, but speaking as a practising attorney for 38 years my impression is that this whole climate science issue is not a legal one or even a scientific one, it is a contest for the hearts and minds of the public and their governments. You have the world’s most popular climate science blog as access to the court of public opinion. Continue to use it. Pound on National Geographic. Hold them accountable for their minion. This hapless nit has opened that door for you. What a gift. Don’t blow it by making him some sort of martyr for the “cause”. Do it with your blog and truthful refutations and expositions of their bias and misplaced advocacy. People will notice.
Litigation in general and defamation litigation in particular is a last resort for those who have money to burn and no other means to make their point or clear their names. The outcomes are capricious and almost always unsatisfactory. The process is slow, frustrating, energy consuming, and expensive beyond belief. The truth can be wonderfully and skilfully manipulated in legal proceedings because of rules of evidence and procedures that favor the appearance of fairness over any sensible search for what really happened. Only a fool would rush in if he had any other options. I hope that explains why Michael Mann stumbles into it and why you should stay out of it.
I’m in agreement with Warren Meyer. But you should know I’ll support you whatever path you choose because I believe you are a sane and decent person who has chosen to clean out the stables.
LOL, oops…..
It’s a blank billboard. What is the best thing to do with it?
1) Suing doesn’t necessarily raise awareness outside those already engaged in the issue.
2) An apology at the same level of circulation as the transgression doesn’t raise awareness outside those already engaged in the issue.
3) Letting it go definitely doesn’t raise awareness outside those already engaged in the issue.
Heartland chose to take the controversy to a wider audience with its blank billboard.
Look at what a few seconds of you on PBS did, head explosion watches were wide spread. How many people decided to look into “it” for themselves because of that? That IMHO is how our numbers grow and that in turn is how we avoid cap and trade or cap and bribe (dividend) or just plain old carbon tax, by having enough voters to make it political suicide to pass such irresponsible legislation. Of course the chances of getting to a wider audience through NatGeo are slim, but perhaps it’s at least worth a shot.
Skip the suit. Why pump money into lawyers? Instead encourage folks to contribute the money they would have given to support the suit to a campaign to place an advertisement you design wherever you feel would be most beneficial.
Rattle his cage like hell, frighten him, disgrace him in front of Nat Geo but don’t waste time and money on going to the courts. It will become an obsession, it will keep you awake at night and your life will be altogether better if you put it behind you after you have shown him you have teeth.
Under the treat of a suit, I would demand a full apology, well publicized on both their web site and magazine.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect
Enough Said!
Don’t do it. Life is too precious and short; you have more than enough on already; the only guarantee is that lawyers will profit and you will always still know that (until the parties to the climate debate finally reconcile, probably still many years hence) warmists will think and say the same as Laden in private, even if you frighten them off saying so in public.
Best to rise above the slings and arrows, have faith in your convictions, keep up all the good work – and save your money!
Anthony– I’ve been on both side of the aisle in lawsuits. Don’t do go that route.
They completely devour all your: time, focus, money and energy and seldom do you get justice or satisfaction.
Tell the guy to make a formal public apology and move on.
Pick your fights carefully. These idiots are getting desperate as their scam is falling apart; they’ll destroy themselves. The truth always wins in end.
I think a cartoon by Josh immortalizing Laden as a vapid yenta or some such theme would be money better spent than paying lawyers.
If it were me, I’d sue him, but you have to make that decision for yourself. Getting involved in the legal system is a hard and nasty road. Don’t do it hastily, and don’t do it unless it’s something you really believe is important.
I’m a former Nat Geo subscriber and support anything that might make them more responsible in their “climate change” hysteria reporting.
Another point is that I’m not in a position to help you financially with any suit and I can’t in good conscience advise you to pursue it unless I was willing to help cover the costs.
As a retired lawyer, I recommend suing. I recently read that Robert Bork was advised to ignore the false accusations Ted Kennedy made against him during the hearings for his Supreme Court appointment confirmation because no one would believe them. He was not confirmed. Don’t be Borked or Swift Boated. Respond aggressively.
Ric Werme says:
January 18, 2013 at 9:13 am
You are making the rather optimistic assumption that Laden could understand anything Monkton wrote. He seems to have reading comprehension issues, perhaps related to the disability he has admitted with spelling.
Anthony, morally and intellectually you have already won. I would continue to drive the point blogally if I were in your shoes, but trying it legally, I’m afraid it may break you. As someone said it so succintly up here, do not wrestle with a pig, you both get dirty, but he loves it. Laden loves muck and that’s where he lives and we know it. Leave him at that but show the world that he loves muck.
Any way you chose, I’m with you.
I voted yes, and would contribute to a ‘fighting fund’ if one is set up for the simple reason that if it goes to court, the record will be public, and Mr Laden will have to reveal his reasons, his sources and expose his version of the science to cross-examination. It will also give you a platform on which to put all the counter arguments ‘on record’ and it should make folk like the NG take a more cautious approach to some of the tripe they publish as ‘truth’ in future.
Definitely not Anthony. I’m a scientist who was heavily involved in litigation as a corporate representative for over ten years. I know the terrain. I could drag on forever and you would get very, very frustrated and angry at the crap his no doubt equally sleazy defense attorneys would throw at you.
I think it’s god to publicize it though because this type of thing seems to be becoming their main argument for anthropogenic global whatever it is this week. Not a very strong scientific argument IMO.