Harrit sues paper for defamation

[Oystein]

Thanks for confirming my assessment that you have been caught with your pants down and you know it, by ignoring the substance of my posts, which ask you to substantiate a bare-assed claim you made.

 

[leftysergeant]

It is not Harrit's fault the the 9/11 debate is confused by pseudoscience coming from both sides. Harrit has merely presented findings of his study of WTC dust. Findings which indeed have not been refuted. That members of the public outside the scientific community don't understand his findings does not constitute a legitimate public opinion. Again, those unable to assess his work will not be the ones determining what his reputation is.

The problem for Harrit is that nobody of good repute within the scientific community thinks he is smarter than the average janitor, he has never proven his work to be valid, and only the uneducated and delusional layman thinks he has his **** together. Thus, he is kind of slander-proof. He has no reputation to defend.

 

[leftysergeant]

His reputation in the community is a combination of all the ways in which he chooses to present himself to the community. If he began his career as a respected scientist and finishes it by persisting in doing something controversial and questionable, he cannot pick and choose which parts of his life he claims were damaged by the actions of another. Danish law expressly allows for the actions of the plaintiff to be taken into account when defamation is alleged.

Would the fact that the whackadoodle is accusing public figures of complicity in a capital offense of staggering proportions without evidence enter into the arguement?

 

[Oystein]

The problem for Harrit is that nobody of good repute within the scientific community thinks he is smarter than the average janitor, he has never proven his work to be valid, and only the uneducated and delusional layman thinks he has his **** together. Thus, he is kind of slander-proof. He has no reputation to defend.

Perhaps Harrit or ergo could list the relevant academic and professional conferences where Harrit has presented his 9/11 ideas to the scientific community to build up a scientific reputation wrt 9/11?

 

[ozeco41]

Would the fact that the whackadoodle is accusing public figures of complicity in a capital offense of staggering proportions without evidence enter into the arguement?

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:

"...accusing public figures of complicity in a capital offense of staggering proportions without evidence...

is unlikely to

... enter into the arguement?

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.

 

[Sunstealer]

The problem for Harrit is that nobody of good repute within the scientific community thinks he is smarter than the average janitor, he has never proven his work to be valid, and only the uneducated and delusional layman thinks he has his **** together. Thus, he is kind of slander-proof. He has no reputation to defend.

^^ This.

How do you slander someone's reputation when they don't have one?

 

[ozeco41]

How do you slander someone's reputation when they don't have one?

That could be the effective bottom line at law.

...I just took a few hundred words to explain why. 721 to be precise.

 

[Justin39640]

JayUtah, in the same way that a few morons with megaphones do not constitute public opinion, one's personal and unprofessional opinion as to science vs. pseudoscience in 9/11 inquiry does not constitute valid legal analysis.

Yes, the issue at hand is whether Harrit's reputation has been harmed by the comments. Integral to determining this will be questioning the notion that 9/11 inquiry of any kind is "questionable". I've seen no scientific opinion as yet that suggests it is, or that Harrit's research is unscientific. Public opinion (which is not a homogenous entity to begin with) is of no consequence here. It's not the business of a court of law to assess public opinion on such matters in the first place, and secondly, to enlist it in determining the validity of libelous comments.

Harrit is a *********** moron. He's a quack and his study proved that. Based on this study, his employers should probably go back and look at his older work to make sure his quack ideas and jumping to conclusions aren't present there either.

He enthusiastically put himself into the public light. If he can't take the criticism, he shouldn't have participated.

Maybe, in light of this lawsuit, the people who he accused of an inside job (after all, that's the purpose of his bogus study) should sue him for slander, along with other top truthers who put out moronic accusations with no evidence.

 

[ozeco41]

...Maybe, in light of this lawsuit, the people who he accused of an inside job (after all, that's the purpose of his bogus study) should sue him for slander, along with other top truthers who put out moronic accusations with no evidence.

Whilst the idea could be attractive or amusing - depending on the perspective we take - the suggested action is unlikely to be pursuable at law and not likely to succeed if it was pursued.

Simply reverse the logic outlined against the Harrit claim in earlier posts. No ones reputation has been injured by Harrit or the truth movement at large because they are an ineffective and very small minority. Neither the public at large nor the scientific community would take Harrit or the truth movement seriously. So no ones reputation is harmed. No actionable defamation.

 

[KDLarsen]

Not to mention, have they actually named anyone by now?

I don't follow the 9/11 Truthers much (if at all), and all I seem to remember the local truthers getting excited about, was a docu where the Danish PM messed up his timings related to when WTC7 was collapsing. They were certain that this was proof of his advance knowledge, although they never could explain why on earth he would need to have it in the first place...

 

[Justin39640]

Whilst the idea could be attractive or amusing - depending on the perspective we take - the suggested action is unlikely to be pursuable at law and not likely to succeed if it was pursued.

Simply reverse the logic outlined against the Harrit claim in earlier posts. No ones reputation has been injured by Harrit or the truth movement at large because they are an ineffective and very small minority. Neither the public at large nor the scientific community would take Harrit or the truth movement seriously. So no ones reputation is harmed. No actionable defamation.

I was definitely shooting more for amusing lol. I realize all that. I also think that Harrit ruined his own reputation and this guy just pointed it out. Sucks to be Niels!

 

[ozeco41]

I was definitely shooting more for amusing lol....

Thought so. My motive is similar - this thread giving me an opportunity to practice my somewhat rusty legal stuff. JayUtah is doing a better job - maybe I should stick to the engineering.

And I'm doing it the lazy way relying on general memory rather than getting the books off the shelf - and those books are only seven feet away in front of my desk. Although I did a little bit of Googling and read a paper on the history of Defamation Law in AU - Common Law tradition of course so no link to Danish Code law.

I realize all that. I also think that Harrit ruined his own reputation and this guy just pointed it out. Sucks to be Niels!

As I said in a recent post "That could be the effective bottom line at law.

"
---even if there is some injury to reputation - he brought it on himself.

 

[JayUtah]

Yes, the issue at hand is whether Harrit's reputation has been harmed by the comments. Integral to determining this will be questioning the notion that 9/11 inquiry of any kind is "questionable".

No. Harrit's case attempts to raise that straw man, but as we have belabored, the defendant is not compelled to offer up the defense the plaintiff most desires and for which he is most prepared. The crime of defamation is composed of plural elements, all of which must be satisfied. The defense is naturally likely to attack the element most likely to result in acquittal, which renders the other elements moot. Harrit has the burden to prove that all the elements of the crime occurred.

I have seen many crackpots turn to the law to redress public criticism of their claims. They invariably fail because they wrongly envision the courtroom as a venue for their particular theory, not the points of fact and law that surround the exposition of that theory in public. The court deals only in what is relevant to the accusation, in the narrowest possible sense, not in all the points of irrelevant controversy between the parties.

I've seen no scientific opinion as yet that suggests it is, or that Harrit's research is unscientific.

Harrit has that burden of proof. Since Harrit deliberately chose to eschew the time-honored practices associated with scientific inquiry, review, and publication, and instead take his personal case directly to the public, and since he had previously published opinions on 9/11 before having undertaken any scientific inquiry relevant to his stated expertise, it is prima facie that Harrit's claims are not scientific, and likely not intended to be.

Courts are not easily fooled. They are well attuned to the attempts of plaintiffs and defendants to change horses as the stakes mount. And they are well attuned to the difference between legitimate science and pseudoscience, even when the latter is practiced by someone who holds scientific credentials. Since Harrit didn't seek any meaningful peer review for his major opus, his claims that his work "has not been refuted" are misleading and beg the question of its correctness.

Science is created by following the scientific method scrupulously. Instead, Harrit seems to be claiming, "I'm a scientist, therefore what I produce is automatically science." Science is not achieved by individuals working in a vacuum. A scientist is responsible for affirmatively seeking out potential refutations in the form of academic peer review by knowledgeable practitioners, both information and formal. When he operates outside the scientific community and in flagrant violation of scientific protocols, and cannot substantiate having subjected his claims to proper review, he cannot credibly suggest that his work is still somehow science. And in the larger sense he cannot suggest that some claimed lack of refutation is due to the claims themselves being irrefutable. "Not refuted" and "irrefutable" are two very different concepts under the law, as they are also in science.

Public opinion (which is not a homogenous entity to begin with) is of no consequence here.

Nonsense. A person's reputation is by definition the public's opinion of him. That's tantamount to saying no court could ever issue a finding of fact regarding a person's reputation. Without such a finding, no court could ever rule that a person's reputation has been harmed, for such a ruling would have to show -- as a matter of fact -- what that reputation was prior to the alleged defamation and what damage to it was suffered as a consequence.

Harrit is not entited to a falsely favorable reputation. You and Harrit wrongly seem to believe that Harrit's erstwhile career as a scientist legitimizes his 9/11 related public activities and appearances. That's not how science works, and it's not how the law works either. Instead Harrit's deliberate attempt to become a public figure by arguing a conspiracy theory in an unscientific manner taints his reputation as a serious scientist. That is how the law will see it. He cannot simply choose the best parts of his career, ignore his voluntary foray into activism, and say that his cherry-picked reputation has been damaged by another party, when that party is simply commenting on the light in which Harrit has deliberately chosen to stand.

The role of defamation law is to prevent a third party from maliciously attaching to a person's character unwanted belief that that reduces his stature in the estimation of the public. It is not to rescue a person's reputation from a public belief he has engendered through his own affirmative actions. Harrit voluntarily decided to publish beliefs distinctly at odds with the overwhelmingly vast majority of relevant experts, and to do so in an unscientific manner. He reaps the consequences of those choices, and he cannot pin them on another.

It's not the business of a court of law to assess public opinion on such matters in the first place, and secondly, to enlist it in determining the validity of libelous comments.

In a case of defamation that's the court's primary business. Before the court can determine whether Harrit's reputation was harmed, it must first determine what that reputation is. What Harrit's reputation was and whether it was harmed by the defendant's actions is an element of the crime of defamation. It may not be ignored. As I have belabored to your deaf ears, the defense is not constrained to offer an affirmative defense against the one point the plaintiff considers most confident.

Your entire post is legal nonsense, for the reasons previously stated.

 

[ozeco41]

^^^^

Go for it JayUtah.

 

[DGM]

Unless you're referring to something unique to Danish libel law, no, there is no requirement for this.

No, it is in reference to claims of defamation. Harrit would have to show that this person(the paper in this case) alone was the reason for the harm to his reputation. He would also have to show that there was indeed harm caused by these statements and these statements alone.

If I point out to a cop that you are committing a crime, I'm not responsible for your arrest, you are. You can't sue me unless you can show I caused you to commit the crime. Same sort of deal.

There is no onus on Harrit. The onus is on the journalist to defend his/her comment. To do that, s/he would probably have to show that Harrit's work has been challenged extensively in the scientific community and shown to be invalid. So far it hasn't, so the magazine is in for a ride of their own making. Good on Harrit.

No, Harrit is claiming the comment hurt his reputation. He needs to prove this first. Only after that would the paper have to prove reasoning for the comment.

His work is irrelevant until he gets past the point of proving harm by the defendant.

Ergo: You're 10 days in to a court case that is unlikely to last a day.

 

[Oystein]

No. Harrit's case attempts to raise that straw man, but as we have belabored, the defendant is not compelled to offer up the defense the plaintiff most desires and for which he is most prepared.
[...snip...]
Your entire post is legal nonsense, for the reasons previously stated.

Nom'ed

 

[ozeco41]

Nom'ed

Agreed. It was so well written that I am resisting the temptation to comment on some minor related aspects. I would certainly need to go back to the law books and do some research of Danish law before I could comment.

 

[JayUtah]

JayUtah is doing a better job - maybe I should stick to the engineering.

Actually I'm an engineer. But I work closely with lawyers and am not a stranger to the courtroom. The law sometimes requires expert understanding that I provide, and the practice of engineering requires legal expertise to satisfy the public constraints on that practice.

---even if there is some injury to reputation - he brought it on himself.

Indeed, and Danish criminal law (which, unlike English Common Law, governs defamation in Denmark) explicitly excuses liability where the actions of the defendant warrant the allegedly defamatory comment. And unlike Common Law, the truth of the questionable comment is only tangentially relevant in Danish law. To expect the defendant to attempt to prove the statement was factually true is Anglo-Saxon bias. That is not a defense under Danish law, and therefore not something that the plaintiff should expect.

However in neither tradition is there required a secondary inquiry into whatever deeper controversy may exist between the litigants. Hence there is only mild interest in whether Harrit's 9/11 publication is real science.

The defendant may attempt an affirmative defense on the point of justified commentary, arguing that the plaintiff brought on himself ridicule through his actions. But that is not rebutted by the plaintiff showing that he has produced what he believes to be (and what may hypothetically be endorsed as) good science. The point of fact is not what the plaintiff believes to be his honorable and strong points, but what the defendant identifies as those points he believes merit public ridicule. A married man caught red-handed with a prostitute may not base his reputation solely on his charity work or his prominent position in his local church, and demand that his critics deal only in those. He must endure all he does.

Should the question of Harrit's extracurricular publications arise, the court is not bound to respect Harrit's definition of what good science is and whether his publications fit that mold. The court will rely on its own judgment and testimony to determine what good science consists of, and will reach its own conclusion about whether Harrit's claims are properly scientific. Harrit wants to dictate to the court what his reputation is and how it was arrived at. He does not seem to understand that he has a burden of proof on all those points, and that the defense will be given every opportunity to rebut it.

 

[AsbjornAndersen]

From what I understand, Harrit's "selling point" is that "tosse" (loonie) is used about mentally ill persons, and therefore the paper is claiming that he is mentally ill.
The main problem is that "tosse" more often than not is used as meaning "fool" or "idiot" instead of "mentally ill". This alone undermines his case. The context in which it was used, makes it even more clear that the intention wasn't to label Harrit "mentally ill". Plus, the column was a debate-column, expressing solely the writer's opinion. I doubt the case will progress as far as discussing the validity of Harrit's publications

 

[ozeco41]

Actually I'm an engineer. But I work closely with lawyers and am not a stranger to the courtroom....

Civil Engineer here - plus 15 years Army Reserve Engineers (included demolitions training) I practised mainly in the utilities area - most relevant experience was in managing engineering and managing regulatory functions hence the legal perspective. Add Bachelor of Laws as a "mature age student" but never practised. Managing engineers who persist in losing the big picture plot the most relevant experience I think. Recall the story about alligators and swamps. Or forests and trees. You see that a lot here IMNSHO.

Cannot remember if I said it in an earlier post but our state statute diminished "truth" as a defence in defamation cases so similar to the Danish law. For example if the victim had some reputation damaging history which had not been published then publishing it would be defamation. Sure it was true but making it public was the act which caused the damage. So that was a significant step away from CL tradition.


The rest of your post - well stated - understood and agreed.

Remember we are operating under "Internet Forum Discussion Rules" so ergo et al can keep pretending that courts and the law of the land don't exist and/or that silly internet debating tricks would be allowed in a court. That is a big reason why the truth movement would never go there or welcome another investigation.