Mr Pivar, meet Gene Ray ---
www.timecube.com
--- I'm sure you'll get on famously.
According to Princeton's WordNet, crackpot simply means "a whimsically eccentric person." It's not libel, it's a term of endearment!
You're absolutely right, though, that Pivar just wants to scare Myers into submission.
Since it's (A) a review of Pivar's book -- i.e., an opinion article, (B) not a particularly malicious display, and (C) concerning a public figure, I suspect any credible judge will throw it out quickly.
"...he's been named as the defendant in at least 25 cases..."
You mean plaintiff?
OH NO! NOT TIMECUBE!
You mean plaintiff?
As a matter of fact, that is what I meant. Thanks for the catch.
--WKW
Pivar evidently only wants his book reviewed by people who love it.
Well, yeah. So does every other published author.
Doesn't work that way.
"...doesn't work that way ..."
Will someone tell Oprah ...please.
Any lawyer that takes that case on contingency is one stupid lawyer.
Why do the creationists hate the first amendment?
If it's going to become trendy for authors to sue anyone who speaks ill of their work, I should probably just be glad it's happening AFTER I taught all my writing students that Dan Brown is a fraud who should never again be allowed near the English language.
You won't hear the conservatives mentioning this guy when "Tort Reform" gets tossed around.
In order for something to be libellous, doesn't it have to be untrue?
Or is the legal system in its own universe where that's no the case?
Just curious, for obvious reasons....
(Really curious. I'd like to hear from the lawyers among us.)
Q,
Anyone who purports to give a simple answer to the legal ramifications of defamation isn't paying attention. The law is all over the board, and differentiates between public and private persons; between statements of fact and statements of opinion; and between the status/job of the person making the supposedly defamatory statement. Throw in free speech concerns and I can find you a case somewhere in this country holding nearly any position you assert.
Now, having said that, truth is in MOST cases a valid and winning defense to defamation. At one time, I'd have said it was an absolute defense, but some courts have muddied the matter by going to the question of malice in spite of the truth of the statement. In simple terms, sometimes you can win a libel suit even when the statement was true if you can prove that it was said or written more to hurt the plaintiff than to address the facts.
Depending on the court and the specific facts involved, this suit may survive all the way to trial and verdict. If so, the defendant can expect to be out many thousands of dollars in legal expenses even though he (should) win on the merits.
"In simple terms, sometimes you can win a libel suit even when the statement was true if you can prove that it was said or written more to hurt the plaintiff than to address the facts. "
If this is true, then it would be just about the only way that English libel law is more generous to the defendants than American libel law. Truth is an absolute defence under UK law. Malice plays a part in UK libel, but only for defences using qualified privilege.
Agreed, Ginger, and it's a departure from traditional American law. In colonial times, we declared truth to be an absolute defense for a publisher against a colonial governor, in contradiction to British law. (Zenger) Wiki has a pretty decent discussion of US law under "slander and libel."
In simple terms, sometimes you can win a libel suit even when the statement was true if you can prove that it was said or written more to hurt the plaintiff than to address the facts.
So...I could lose if I called him an "ass" because he is neither entirely a human anus nor a donkey?
Thanks nightshift66 and Ginger! Interesting.
As an attorney I can tell you Pivar has every right to sue PZ Meyer and he may well prevail. And by the way, shame on PZ for trying to censor an interesting, if unconventional theory, in science community. www.aninconvenienttheory.com shows part of the book in question and it seems of interest to this non-scientist
Well, atlegalbar, as one of my professors used to say, "You can always sue. The question is, can you win?"
My guess is that this won't survive a motion to dismiss. It's poorly drafted, and makes no attempt to set out the allegations of how Pivar's reputation has suffered, which is a pretty important part of assessing damages.
Incidentally, why is a rich industrialist with a rock-solid case of defamation hiring a solo practitioner who's only been admitted two years and plainly doesn't have much experience in federal court to file his case?
And by the way, shame on PZ for trying to censor an interesting, if unconventional theory, in science community.
No. No no no. It's not an "interesting, if unconventional theory", because it's not a theory. It's just some crap he made up - it's the very definition of crackpottery. I suggest you read PZ's actual review of the new edition of the book and find out why.
By the way, saying something is wrong and then laying out all the ways in which it is wrong is not censorship. It's called peer review (even if PZ was a little harsher than normal), and it is the way in which science is evaluated and judged.
Nice and knowledgeable sites for everyone-
Commenting by HaloScan
