• 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.

Dawkins being sued for libel

A quick Google of Christopher McGrath, the man who's suing him, makes rather interesting reading. I won't say any more, since he seems to be more than eager to sue just about anyone for libel.

Dave
 
I suspect its related to this:
Back in September 2010 I noticed a review on the Amazon website for Stephen Hawking's and Leonard Mlodinow's book "The Grand Design" by an author called "Scrooby". His 'review' was essentially a vehicle for marketing his own book "The Attempted Murder of God".

I investigated both Scrooby, the publisher "McG Productions Limited" and the owner of the company called Chris McGrath. I discovered that the publishing arm of"McG" was set up at the same time of the publication of the book.
Click to expand...

Not sure what Dawkins did - maybe allowed something to be posted on his forums?

At any rate, under UK law, doesn't the defendant have to prove his statement was true (rather than the complainant prove the statement was false and malicious)?
 
Checkmite said:
Not without knowing more about the case than we do.
Click to expand...


There's more information in the blog that madurobob linked to above:

http://vjohn82libelcase.blogspot.com/2011/10/brief-overview-for-those-who-are.html

This is from one of the ones being sued, as listed in the link in the OP.

From the blog:

On the 4th July 2011 I received a claim form through the post stating that libel proceedings had been issued against me, Amazon and two other parties by Chris McGrath and his company.
Click to expand...

I suspect the two other parties are Dawkins and his foundation.
 
Book appears to be drivel and has been slated by those unfortunate enough to waste time reading it. What better way to drum up business than suing the bette noir of the Answers in Genesis aficionados. The latter, after all, are going to be the most likely purchasers.

A cynical publicity stunt?
 
Nogbad said:
So his book is a religious text not a scientific work?
Click to expand...
I think its weirder than that. IIRC he allowed it to be published and promoted and perceived as a religious text, but later claimed it was really satire of the whole religious/science debate. There is something in making that satire claim that makes his libel charges more likely to stick (in his mind, at least). I'll see if I can find those details again...

ETA. Here we go
It is also worth noting that, despite having marketed his book for somewhere close to nine months as a genuine contribution to the anti-Dawkins genre, McGrath quickly responded to minor ********* that ensued after he spammed the Amazon entry for Hawking and Mlodinow’s book, by switching tack and claiming that his book was, in fact, a deliberate parody/satire of the ongoing science vs religion debate, offering a refund to anyone who purchased the book before this apparent deception had been revealed. Absurdly, given this self-admitted deception, part of McGrath’s claim is based on the assertion that statements made before he perform this abrupt U-turn, which suggested that he might be a creationist/religious fundamentalist, should be considered to be defamatory.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
I know the UK libel laws are seen by many as unjust, but how can any court take such nonsense seriously? Surely this author would need to prove that his book was meant to be a Poe all along, and even then, how could he complain that a reviewer fell for it?
 
madurobob said:
I think its weirder than that. IIRC he allowed it to be published and promoted and perceived as a religious text, but later claimed it was really satire of the whole religious/science debate. There is something in making that satire claim that makes his libel charges more likely to stick (in his mind, at least). I'll see if I can find those details again...

ETA. Here we go
Click to expand...

Not sure if or, indeed, why the courts should give this house room. If it was satire then he has scored a coup in fooling Dawkins. Suing under such circumstances looks utterly silly and suggests it wasn't satire but he will now have he soured his only market by saying it is.

Nowt queerer than folk.
 
Last edited:
The blog linked to in the OP appears to exist solely to publicize the craziness of the UK libel laws and to argue for reform. From my cursory reading it sure looks like one is guilty until he can prove his innocence when it comes to libel there. One lawsuit-happy loon with a preposterously weak claim can wreak havoc.
 
AdMan said:
I know the UK libel laws are seen by many as unjust, but how can any court take such nonsense seriously? Surely this author would need to prove that his book was meant to be a Poe all along, and even then, how could he complain that a reviewer fell for it?
Click to expand...

Very seldom will a court reject a case outright without some procedural defect.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom