• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Harrit sues paper for defamation

Degeneve said:
Thank you. I have found it a couple of weeks ago and it is very interesting.

And I apologise for my broken English. I hope it is not too hard to understand...
Click to expand...

Welcome, we have posters who have writ in English they're hull livers and steel git it rong.:D
 
Josarhus said:
There is a difference in Denmark between publicly promoting your opinions/beliefs or keeping them to yourself.

If you keep your opinions/beliefs to yourself, you should also expect that no one in the media attacks, ridicule or in other ways makes references to you and your Opionions/beliefs.

On the other hand, which is the case here, Harrit must tolerate that others also have a public opinion on his ideas and beliefs, since Harrit is actively promoting them in public.

The judge further states that calling Harrit nuts is the journalists own opinion and as a comment to another article, and the journalist's freedom of speech is more important than Harrits feelings.
Click to expand...

Thanks very much. You explained it well.
 
I suppose when you become a public *celebrity* you have to be able to take all manner of criticism... but it's not cool when you are a public persona to act like a common person and you need to pretty much take what the public doles out. Bummer eh?
 
I'd love to think Harrit is a crybaby ***** who got his feelings hurt but... I think it's closer to what you said above about attention whoring and being a lot cheaper than ads on taxis and in Times Square. Probably more effective too. lol
 
Justin39640 said:
I'd love to think Harrit is a crybaby ***** who got his feelings hurt but... I think it's closer to what you said above about attention whoring and being a lot cheaper than ads on taxis and in Times Square. Probably more effective too. lol
Click to expand...


There is absolutely no doubt that Harrit does this for attention. Many of his Danish truther friends have even admitted that the outcome of the case is irrelevant, since they got more attention than they could dream of, by just filing the case.

And then of course, none of them understand law and every ruling going their way is the truth and every ruling going against them, is NWO crushing on the people :crowded:
 
ozeco41 said:
Its highly unlikely that it would be directly involved lefty.

The allegedly offending statement as published translated into English says this "Why not just invite Niels Harrit and the other fools from 9/11 sceptic community in....[then refers to holocaust deniers]"

From the legal perspective of a defamation action the relevant facts are:
1) An assertion that persons identified as 'from 9/11 sceptic community' are fools;
(Edit: BTW as applicable to this defamation action that means 'are generally regarded as fools')

2) An assertion that N Harrit is already one of 'the fools from 9/11 sceptic community'

To prove defamation Harrit has to show that his reputation has been injured by the publication of the combination of those two assertions.
What you describe as 'whackadoodality' is not likely to enter directly into evidence either in the specific example you give or any other specific aspect of Harrit's published beliefs. The sufficient requirement at law would be to show that:
- The '9/11 community' is generally regarded as 'fools'; AND
- Harrit did align with 'the 9/11 sceptic community'.

...and that does not require either identifying the specific points of his agreement with that community OR testing of the validity of any specific point.

To defend the Harrit claim of defamation the defendants can rely on four likely legal outcomes:
A1) A legal threshold finding that their is no prima facie case - "no case to answer" OR ( actually a subset of that threshold)
A2) A legal finding that the newspaper statement was 'fair comment' so not defamation - however that concept of 'fair comment' is handled in Danish law OR
B) A finding that the '9/11 sceptics community' are generally recognised as 'fools' and that Harrit aligned himself with '9/11 sceptic community' thereby voluntarily associating himself with the established standing of that group as 'fools' OR
C) A finding that defamation did occur but that it caused no injury sufficient to warrant either damages award or punishment - the choice depending on the detailed application of Danish law.

Of those 'B)' is the one we are mostly focussed on. Note that it does not directly relate to Harrit's alleged by you 'whackadoodality' (;)) Or any specific aspect of how he has aligned with the '9/11 sceptic community' The fact that he has so presented himself as supporting the '9/11 community' can easily be demonstrated from multiple statements by Harrit and in the public record. So the key legal need would be to establish the fact that the opinion that the '9/11 sceptic community' is generally regarded as 'fools'.

I don't know the specific requirements of Danish code Law but in the Common Law jurisdictions the test would be 'what does the "reasonable person" think'. And 'reasonable person' is sort of 'the average Joe in the street' or (British version) 'the man on the Clapham omnibus'. The characterisation of that notional 'reasonable person' is well established in case law - again the Danish equivalent will be different but will exist.

And there would be no reasonable doubt that the vast majority of citizens would regard 9/11 truth activists as 'fools' or similar.

So Harrit voluntarily aligned himself with a group already believed to be 'fools' - and it follows that, to the extent that his reputation is damaged and if it is damaged, he brought it on himself. The newspaper comment merely reports the damage but does not cause it. He damaged his own reputation by voluntarily associating himself with 9/11 supporters.

Therefore: is unlikely to

A bit of a final disclaimer: Two words 'sceptic' and 'fool(s)' occur throughout my explanation. The actual Danish words could have slight differences of meaning or nuance - my reference is to a machine translation.

We need to remember that this case, if it proceeds, will proceed in a Court of Law and, irrespective of this one being in Danish jurisdiction, it will not be argued by the farcical parody of logic and argument which we see on this forum. Something that truthers forget as they call for 'further investigations with subpoena powers' - court cases and formal inquiries won't play it by truthers' rules of internet illogic.
Click to expand...

So truthers are the skeptics of JREF. :D
 
What if someone like Harrit... simply got some dust and published what he (thought he) found? And left it at that? Would his NT conclusion automatically put him over with the truthers and all their associated insane claims? Or would his work be taken seriously... even if flawed, but an honest effort (albeit incompetent)?

He clearly seems to have run to and with the entire mainstream of the truth movement and voices all their (unsupported and unsupportable) claims. So in a sense he HAS made a spectacle of himself and inviting all manner of commentary about his actions and statements.

You can't have your cake and eat it too.
 
JSanderO said:
What if someone like Harrit... simply got some dust and published what he (thought he) found?
Click to expand...

"Truthers" will defend it to the end as fact. The Harret/Jones paper is proof of this. They analyzed paint, showed the data that proved it was paint and called it "nano-thermite". "Truthers" only saw the "nano-thermite" claim.

They could have done the same study on dog crap. "Truthers" are only going to see a "hi-tech" explosive.
 
These clowns are nailing their fate in history as charlatans and scientific frauds. It appears to be not innocent mistakes because they've had ample opportunity to retract but appear to dig in. This reminds me of creation scientists. No?
 
JSanderO said:
"These clowns are nailing their fate in history as charlatans and scientific frauds.

It appears to be not innocent mistakes because they've had ample opportunity to retract but appear to dig in.

This reminds me of creation scientists.

No?"
Click to expand...

No.

But your comments are probably a good fit for those who consider money and fame to be the motivation.

Is that a good reason for Dr. Harrit to academically, and personally, 'throw himself under the bus'?

Dr. Harrit's work meets the primary scientific requirement of being reproducible, per the Dr. Harrit et al Bentham paper of 2009.

With something as huge as 9/11, tenured, respected scientists have no motivation for telling provable lies about the official conclusions.

Being reproducible, their analysis can be confirmed or denied by followup publications.

If as you say he is a "clown", a "charlatan", or "scientific fraud", can I presume you have a strong proof?

JSanderO, what published findings entitle you to cast such slurs on Dr. Harrit's reputation as an academic, and as a human.

MM
 
Miragememories said:
Dr. Harrit's work meets the primary scientific requirement of being reproducible, per the Dr. Harrit et al Bentham paper of 2009.
Click to expand...

No it is not. You know this. Why do you keep repeating this lie?

Using information listed in the paper only, what chips would be used to reproduce the study?
 
Miragememories said:
... With something as huge as 9/11, tenured, respected scientists have no motivation for telling provable lies about the official conclusions. .... MM
Click to expand...
Harrit is a nut on 911 issues. Full blown nut case fantasy claims based on BS. 12 years of failure, and no one can support Harrit's insane claims with evidence. The personification of 911 truth failure, Harrit.

Now Harrit is proved by the court to be an idiot, on 911. Court has spoken, case closed. Who paid the court fees?
 
Miragememories said:
No.

But your comments are probably a good fit for those who consider money and fame to be the motivation.

Is that a good reason for Dr. Harrit to academically, and personally, 'throw himself under the bus'?
Click to expand...

This is admitting that 9/11 Truth is academic suicide because it goes against logic and reason.

You have said more here about your convictions than you admit to yourself.

No excuses or backtracking now, or you'll just look wilfully dishonest.
 
Miragememories said:
JSanderO, what published findings entitle you to cast such slurs on Dr. Harrit's reputation as an academic, and as a human.

MM
Click to expand...

I don't have to publish anything to know a fake when I see one. Seems like only true believers are buying his line. I'm not.
 
So.. you say the WWE is fake? How many gold medals in Olympic Wrestling do you have???? None??? Well then, what would you know! :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom