• 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

chrismohr said:
I for one am relieved to see Harrit lose. I've taken a lot of flack from my buddies on the forum for being a free-speech hawk (journalists are like that). To see the whole 9/11 Truth movement try to get behind Niels Harrit's libel case is worse than pathetic. It's dangerous for them. They always complain about being censored, shouted down, marginalized, etc. And they're right. I have always been the voice that screams, "I disagree with what you say but will defend your right to say it." I have never gone to the mods to report a violation on JREF or here.
I will not cease being the free-speech hawk I have always been, but what baldfaced hypocrisy for 9/11 Truth to scream "censorship!" and then sue a reporter for expressing a very negative opinion! The next time I feel called to take up the cause of free speech for the Harrit crowd, I'm not sure I'll be able to get it up to come to their defense.
Click to expand...
Actually I changed my mind. I will always defend the free speech rights of everyone, even Niels Harrit. Sometimes, they behave in a way that causes me to lose my zest a bit.
 
Last edited:
chrismohr said:
Actually I changed my mind. I will always defend the free speech rights of everyone, even Niels Harrit. Sometimes, they behave in a way that causes me to lose my zest a bit.
Click to expand...

I think there is a time and a place though Chris, wasting the courts time and trying to combine a fantasy into a court case is just plain stupid.

If they had evidence and suspects they could use the court in the correct way.
 
Actually Spanx I do NOT support in any way the Harrit lawsuit. I think it has a chilling effect on free speech. The courts should be used for only the most egregious cases. I am super unhappy with Harrit for taking this course, and consider any 911 Truth supporter who supported this lawsuit to be a hypocrite, since they so often complain about being shut out, censored,etc. I support Harrit's free speech rights but not his choice to use the courts to try to squelch the free speech of his opponents, even the obnoxious ones.
 
PS I'm glad the courts hit him with thousands of dollars of court-related costs. Speaking only generally here, that's what courts do when your case has no merit. Generally, it is expensive to litigate frivolously (not speaking about the Harrit case specifically, of course).
 
chrismohr said:
PS I'm glad the courts hit him with thousands of dollars of court-related costs. Speaking only generally here, that's what courts do when your case has no merit. Generally, it is expensive to litigate frivolously (not speaking about the Harrit case specifically, of course).
Click to expand...
Gallop's lawyers copped costs PLUS punitive sanctions for professional misconduct.

The truther propaganda war likes these court losses - Google "Gallop Veale" and get a raft of truther reframes of history.
This came in the form of a $15,000 fine levied against Veale for filing a “frivolous” appeal (the appeal had already been turned down in April of last year).
Click to expand...
 
ozeco41 said:
Gallop's lawyers copped costs PLUS punitive sanctions for professional misconduct.

The truther propaganda war likes these court losses - Google "Gallop Veale" and get a raft of truther reframes of history.
Click to expand...
The court called Harrit's case frivolous, not me. :rolleyes:
 
Harrit made himself a public figure. He opened himself up to scrutiny and criticism. He associated himself... on his 9/11 beliefs with people who have made some pretty whacked out statements... like Jones' one about the hurricane in Haiti. Harrit didn't make that statement but the journalist saw him in a group of "nuts".. and made the call.

I think public people need to consider who they associate with. Take Travolta and Tom Cruise and Scientology. "Guilt by association"... at least of running with some crazies. And I don't think JT or TC would sue someone for calling them "nuts" because of the Scientology association.
 
chrismohr said:
Actually Spanx I do NOT support in any way the Harrit lawsuit. I think it has a chilling effect on free speech. The courts should be used for only the most egregious cases. I am super unhappy with Harrit for taking this course, and consider any 911 Truth supporter who supported this lawsuit to be a hypocrite, since they so often complain about being shut out, censored,etc. I support Harrit's free speech rights but not his choice to use the courts to try to squelch the free speech of his opponents, even the obnoxious ones.
Click to expand...

I'm glad you made these points. It's easy to revere the sanctity of free speech in the abstract. But it becomes much more difficult to respect it when someone else's free speech is directed at you. This tempts even the most fair-minded individuals to wonder whether some equity should prevail. That's because all freedoms in a fair society are based almost entirely on individuals accepting a responsibility to exercise them wisely and fairly. In America, the Founding Fathers noted that if personal discipline did not prevail, then a fair-minded and civil society would inevitably step in to restrict the freedoms by legislative or judicial means.

So the "free speech" question, expressed as "Which of the two -- Villemoes or Harrit -- had the right to free speech?" the answer appears to be "Both of them." Harrit has the largely unfettered right to advocate for alternative theories, and Villemoes has the largely unfettered right to publish his opinion of what that made Harrit look like.
 
The court decided against Harrit, but at least in English legal terminology that's not the same as saying Harrit's case was frivolous. The fact that an appeals court agreed to hear it suggests there was some legitimate question of law. I believe the court awarded Villemoes the cost of his defense, but I don't think that itself (again, under Common Law) would be sufficient to rule Harrit's case frivolous. My impression is that you really have to mount a particularly vacuous argument before you are labeled frivolous. Otherwise people might be intimidated when they had a legitimate case.
 
jaydeehess said:
The court found that the defendant had not libeled Harrit.
Click to expand...
I don't think it was that clear cut. Their libel laws are different than ours. I think (as Jay said) they found that both were within their bounds of free speech. They never ruled on whether the comments were consider libelous. (that's my understanding)
 
DGM said:
I don't think it was that clear cut. Their libel laws are different than ours. I think (as Jay said) they found that both were within their bounds of free speech. They never ruled on whether the comments were consider libelous. (that's my understanding)
Click to expand...

I understand differently. From the excerpt posted here, the judges ruled that the Villemoes' comments were, legally speaking, a rendition of opinion and not an allegation of fact. The former is protected speech. The latter would not be, if it were a false allegation made recklessly. That's not too far off from the elements of defamation in Common Law. Specifically, the claim must be an allegation of fact -- and likely understood as such by the intended audience. "Justin Bieber is a lousy singer," sounds like an allegation of fact, but it's inherently an opinion and thus protected speech.

As I wrote before, Harrit tried to use the courts to enforce that Villemoes must have the same opinion of him as he has of himself. The court disallowed that, as the freedom of speech is foremost the freedom of thought. Harrit's attempt to establish his own opinion of himself as objectively factual and legally enforceable was rejected by the court (as it should have been), according to the additional argument that a court cannot rule on scientific theories.

The protected nature of Harrit's speech was never in legal question. Nor was it challenged. Nothing in the court's ruling would have affected Harrit's prior or subsequent speech. The ruling that Villemoes speech was not defamatory has the legal effect of declaring it to be protected speech also. But in noting that both Harrit and Villemoes were protected by legal guarantees of free speech, I wasn't offering that as the decision of the court or a summary of the legal ruling. I think it was a clear-cut decision. It's just an inherent fact of free speech that equally-protected speech can be dissonant, unpopular, conflicting, and express radically different opinions. Those negative factors are why it must be protected. Inoffensive or deferential speech needs no protection.
 
Is there an English translation of the judgement available?

I'm pretty sure I haven't heard anyone report that the court ruled that Harrit's case was frivolous.
 
Oh my!

Now he has started spamming the Danish scientific community.

This week I've received two unsolicited mails from him, peddling his talks and referring to some obscure article in a popular scientific "journal".

He must be desperate for attention!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom