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
Re your update: from http://www.webcitation.org/5x0pgZdgl
Dang. What I would give for an edit button, now… Insert your own “/”.
Don’t sue. It very very rarely turns out the way you hoped it would, even if you win. Take the high road. This is sideshow, it shows they are rattled. They are going to be hard at work over the next few years fighting off the facts of lack of AGW, don’t give them anything that could give them a boost.
Fat finger typing – It could drag on; it’s good to publicize it
Sueing is a dubious pleasure even if you win. Lots of time and worry and most imprtaantly cost. If someone will take your case pro bono AND indemnify against the other saides costs which I guess you would have to pay if you lost then jst maybe. Otherwise go for an apology
Never use the tools of the devil to fight the devil. It turns you into the devil. Whether ( I almost wrote weather) using the courts is a tool of the devil or not is a matter of opinion, but the devil does use the courts, which have been corrupted by the devil.
Use your enemies energy and attacks to defeat him. Going on the offensive leave one vulnerable to attack which is not a good idea when one is completely surrounded and outnumbered by the enemy.
The methods and tactics of these people need to be highlighted. So many people think that being a “scientist” or a “science journalist” means being a professional that they are unwilling to listen to anything else. The extremely unprofessional behaviour of these characters needs a harsh light. Mind you, I say that as someone whose contribution to any legal fund would necessarily comprise one church mouse and a crust of bread.
Short answer: no. Even though you have been wronged, every minute of your time and energy that you spend on that lying jackass, instead of bringing more science to the discussion of climate is a victory for Laden. They are losing the science argument, so they want the distraction of mudslinging, ad hom, personal smears, etc. There will be much, much more of this. A simple link to your rebuttal should satify anyone who mistakenly thinks that what Greg Laden says matters.
I voted for sueing his pants off, but follow your lawyers advice. A well-publicised apology, approved by you, would probably be worth more than money. Surely don’t risk any significant amount of cash on suing.
I voted no. I think these guys do more harm to themselves than to you. But, if you decide to, some spare change is waiting for you.
Whatever you do, don’t do it in anger.
Laden is his problem, not yours.
What is best for WUWT? I would think, some publicity from National Geographic. I would go for that.
Anthony
Here is what you have to weigh. First and foremost, lawsuits take time, money, and mental effort that cannot be spent on positive activities. Sometimes this is required if the damage inflicted by the defamation is such as to impede your ability to either carry out your business or get on with your life.
Anthony
My initial gut feel was “Sue the bastard (and anybody else involved)”
However a more realistic approach is a “desist” letter to Laden, Science Blog and National Geographic, setting out your detailed complaint and requiring all apologies, no repetitions, settlement of your legal fees, sufficient exposure and publicity, all on the letterhead of a prominent, suitably qualified and experienced (in such cases) lawyer. The implied threat behind such a letter is that a writ will follow if this generous offer is not accepted promptly The letter is required to grab the attention of the owners/senior management of NG.
You don’t actually care about Laden. OK, you want him, publicly, hung out to dry by NG so he is seen to be irrelevant. That achieved, mission accomplished.
The threat of a lawsuit is often of more value than the suit itself and the risk is lower.
If you decide to sue I’ll throw in my 2 cents to your fund but it will take up so much of your time it may not be worth it.
I was sued personally, several years ago, in a business matter as a joint defendant. The defence costs ran to a quarter of a million pounds sterling (fortunately the principal defendant had given me an indemnity) and after a year we found some (unflattering) history about the plaintiff (the term ponzi would indicate the type of history). The plaintiff’s lawyers dropped him like a hot potato!! You may not be so lucky!!
My initial reaction was yes, sue his a$$; at some point a line must be drawn in the sand that people or organizations cannot impugn your, or any skeptic’s reputation without impunity. If you decide against legal action then demand a full public apology by him and NatGeo but should there be a repeat performance, pursue all available legal remedies.
davidmhoffer says:
January 18, 2013 at 7:58 am
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?
heh.
Ask Nat Geo if they back Laden. If they say they don’t, ask them to disavow him and his work publicly. If they won’t do that, get your lawyer to write them a letter that is just shy of committing you to sue them, but that forces them to book this as a potential claim against which they need to take a reserve. Clutter up their bureaucracy and balance sheet, force them to spend management time and lawyer money, while minimizing your cost and exposure. Maybe a string of letters to them or their advertisers and subscribers –but fashioned to avoid counterattack as a business tort. Why do I recommend this? Because, as noted, diving into litigation is expensive and risky and your objective here is to apply maximum leverage (your cost: your benefit) to the main objective, which is not to squeeze them for money, or punish them, but to get them to change their behavior. I would think that if Nat Geo publicly dumps Laden, the word will spread far and wide. These people aren’t stupid, they’ve just been allowed to inbreed until they’re vicious.
This post: 201 comments (and counting) showing all possible viewpoints.
Laden’s reply (in a similar timeframe): 7 comments (including a double post), all from sycophantic idiots who need to “have a voice” and know that nobody will listen to their innane drivel anywhere else.
And you really need to ask if this is worth bothering with? Run the statistics, man!!!
Questions to ask:
Do you think he deserves the time you will loose?
Do you cause more damage to him and his cause doing what you do today or by suing him ?
A tricky one Anthony. If the legal opinion says you’re on solid ground, sue his ass off. It’s not as if he hasn’t some previous form doing this sort of thing, remembering his labelling Tallbloke a criminal. At the end of the day, your call and if you go for it, I’ll certainly contribute to any fund.
It’s always easy to encourage litigation when you’re not footing the bill but I do think stamping on him will set down a marker that the times have – the days of hate diatribe against skeptics are over.
As for the beastality slur, that’s the shape of things to come. They’re on the predicted path …
“Simplistically, it’s just name calling and they need to do it for reasons of catharsis. Psychologically, it’s a form of self-indulgent displacement activity. Giving us what they think is a bloody good kicking, makes up for their feeling of helplessness in the face of the grim reality of their situation. We’re their hate objects, the ones they totally blame for the collapse of their cult. They’re in the second stage of the death of their belief system; anger. Calling us bad names is a release of that anger and it’s going to get worse, considerably worse.”
http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2012/09/07/an-assessment-of-current-alarmist-propaganda/
Pointman
ps. Standby for the emergency troll mobilisation.
I voted Sue, make an example of… But posts like Warren Meyer’s have changed my mind. Laden’s a twonk not worthy of your time or the aggravation involved.
Jeez. Greg Laden is an egotistical, fatuous [snip]. Why even bother caring what he thinks? How many people read his blog anyway? Just ignore him. He might try to snipe at you from time to time, but so what? Really, it’s Greg Laden and nobody cares what he thinks. No, really.
There is a statute of limitations. Anthony probably has two years at least to think about his best course of action.
In the mean time, Laden and cronies had best watch what they post…
For those saying “rise above”, would that that would be of any value.
I would argue that Mitt Romney “rose above” and got pummeled.
The opposition is playing hard ball. There is no winning by “rising above”.
Sue, and demand the apology as part of the settlement. In BIG BOLD ALL CAPS 100 PT FOINT.
As with others, I will contribute to your costs. If there is anyway to contribute to lowering your time burden as well, I’m in.
I agree with Bob Tisdale when he suggested that you contact National Geographic to be allowed to make counterpost in the blog where Mr.Laden made his in.
That way you can acheive several things,one that Nat Geo is now aware of the problem and their reaction if any would be of legal value and that you can make a smackdown post in reply.
You are not doing them any favours holding back. Today they attack you … tomorrow they will attack someone who sues first and asks questions later with much bigger pockets. Better they learn their lesson with you!