Harrit sues paper for defamation

[Josarhus]

Hell, just the company he keeps should be enough to have the case thrown out. Looking up Harrit on Ekstra Bladet (Daily Mail'esque tabloid for you non-Danes) reveals an 'article' on this case, as well as an article on how he'll be appearing at a conference along with a man who claims to have fathered an extra-terrestial child

And then there was the cancelled (I think?) conference not too long ago.

From that conference:

http://www.facebook.com/#!/photo.ph...72636287.65816.234970559946469&type=1&theater

Harrit sitting next to the starchilds "father"

 

[JayUtah]

I would never try to read too much into Google translations, but I have to ask: does it even matter if Niels Harrit is a "public figure?" I can't see how it would.

It may not under Danish law. None of us here has yet has any working knowledge of Danish law, but in the United States it does matter -- public figures are expected to have a thicker skin for criticism, so they have to meet higher standards of proof for claims of defamation.

The point of Danish law that does seem relevant, however, is the suggestion in their criminal code that if the plaintiff's conduct warranted the comment then less liability attaches.

It seems to me the case is a simple matter of determining whether or not calling someone a "tosse" meets the requirements called forth in the law.

You make it sound so simple.

The reason non-lawyers are rightly admonished not to speculate on the law is that legal decisions are predicated upon long lists of past case law precedent that help the courts decide fairly and uniformly on each case brought before them, based on how they've decided in the past. Lawyers learn the important ones and learn the research tools for finding the more obscure ones. They can apply to every important point in a case. Danish law works this way too. The point is that unless you have a good working knowledge of that overwhelming body of existing law, you can't really speculate productively about how a court will rule.

So for example when a word like tosse has a variety of meanings, there will be a series of past Danish court decisions that tell what to do when a word has more than one meaning. Past decisions will help decide whether Niels Harrit is a public figure (if that's even relevant). Past decisions will help guide the court in deciding what information to consider when determining whether his reputation was damaged. Past decisions help determine whether a journalist has special privileges or special obligations.

So yes I agree with you in the sense that the decision could be considered a straightforward application of law. But I wouldn't call it "simple" for the reason that it must painstakingly examine several steps in the line of reasoning leading up to the ultimate ruling.

 

[BasqueArch]

It may not under Danish law. None of us here has yet has any working knowledge of Danish law, but in the United States it does matter -- public figures are expected to have a thicker skin for criticism, so they have to meet higher standards of proof for claims of defamation.


.....

 

[leftysergeant]

Does it matter that he first claimed fame as a tosse?

None of his peers ever knew him as anything else.

I know of nobody who supports his claims who is not, himself a screaming tosse.

Where is the tort?

 

[Triterope]

In the United States (being a public figure) does matter -- public figures are expected to have a thicker skin for criticism, so they have to meet higher standards of proof for claims of defamation.

Public figures are held to a higher burden of proof, to ensure that libel laws are not used to suppress free speech. The defining case is New York Times v Sullivan. Public figures have to meet an "actual malice" standard, whereas ordinary shmoes like you and I do not. This makes libel cases difficult to win in the U.S.

The point is that unless you have a good working knowledge of that overwhelming body of existing law, you can't really speculate productively about how a court will rule.

Agreed, but who said we had to be productive?

I understand there are a lot of factors to consider, but I'm curious to see how much weight is given to the journalists' freedom of speech, relative to the other issues. Denmark claims to have freedom of the press, but freedom of the press cannot exist if something as minor as calling someone a "fool" can get you dragged into court to face jail time.

If this happened in the United States, the ruling would be along the lines of "You're suing a newspaper because they called you a fool? Well, then, you are a fool. Case dismissed."

 

[Akuma Tennou]

To be fair, though, your own "credentials" in "either science or law" do not appear to be particularly impressive, either. A BA (or BSCS, depending upon the year) in computer studies isn't really considered a "science" degree. It's a fairly run of the mill degree that anyone can attain. Calling oneself a "Software Engineer" does not = being an engineer. Calling onself a "Computer Scientist" does not = being a scientist. Taking a few courses that mention law somewhere along the line does not = having any "credentials" in law.
I think that you would be better off sticking to what you know best, rather than staking claim to areas of expertise where you actually have none.

ETA: It seems to me that it is always better to stick to the facts instead of trying to start a contest of credentials, particularly when your own appear to be potentially sketchy and not particularly strong in any event. Why even start that kind of contest when it has nothing to do with the actual argument at issue? You've made yourself the topic of discussion here when that was neither necessary nor desirable.

Waw. The hilited part of that post is so prejudiced, is it a poe or something?

 

[Carsten from Denmark]

From wiki, now deleted???

Termit-Niels is the synonym for the Danish "scientist" Niels Harrit, who has sniffed a little too much of his MEK-Solution and has also injected a small bit into his veins. Termit-Niels and his fellow brainwashed followers are actually hobos found in the dust of the WTC ruins, who travel around in the northern part of Europe, spreading their hopeless and paranoid "truth". In Steven E. Jones and Termit-Niels' article about Nanothermite, called "The loaded diaper" by most of the real scientists, he writes about paint and fly ash, but somehow he managed to conclude that he actually found an explosive composition called paint by sane people. Termit-Niels and his cracksmoking followers can be found on the danish conspiracy website, i11time.dk/, but please keep in mind that they will not allow non cracksmoking sane people as members. As a pending memberaspirant of "i11time" you must complete an IQtest at mensa.org/ to get qualified. The IQ definitely must not pass the 80 limit, but "i11time" can dispense from this rule, if you have been a contestant in all kinds of realityprograms or have made a complete fool out of yourself on public medias.[13] One of i11time.dk's most important tasks is to misinform and catch docile sheep, that has no thoughts of their own, unless their mindguru and God, Termit-Niels, tells them to. Lots of scientific researches have shown that attending Termit-Niels' lectures can some serious braindamage and lead to a severe and painful retardation[14] In early 2010 the Danish government recommended all conspiracyfans to visit i11time.dk/ to make up their mind about the raving loonies at the site and the dangers of Termit-Niels' lectures.

 

[KDLarsen]

Hardly surprising given Wikipedia's stance on biographies of living persons

 

[Starving for Truth]

From wiki, now deleted???

Termit-Niels is the synonym for the Danish "scientist" Niels Harrit, who has sniffed a little too much of his MEK-Solution and has also injected a small bit into his veins. Termit-Niels and his fellow brainwashed followers are actually hobos found in the dust of the WTC ruins, who travel around in the northern part of Europe, spreading their hopeless and paranoid "truth". In Steven E. Jones and Termit-Niels' article about Nanothermite, called "The loaded diaper" by most of the real scientists, he writes about paint and fly ash, but somehow he managed to conclude that he actually found an explosive composition called paint by sane people. Termit-Niels and his cracksmoking followers can be found on the danish conspiracy website, i11time.dk/, but please keep in mind that they will not allow non cracksmoking sane people as members. As a pending memberaspirant of "i11time" you must complete an IQtest at mensa.org/ to get qualified. The IQ definitely must not pass the 80 limit, but "i11time" can dispense from this rule, if you have been a contestant in all kinds of realityprograms or have made a complete fool out of yourself on public medias.[13] One of i11time.dk's most important tasks is to misinform and catch docile sheep, that has no thoughts of their own, unless their mindguru and God, Termit-Niels, tells them to. Lots of scientific researches have shown that attending Termit-Niels' lectures can some serious braindamage and lead to a severe and painful retardation[14] In early 2010 the Danish government recommended all conspiracyfans to visit i11time.dk/ to make up their mind about the raving loonies at the site and the dangers of Termit-Niels' lectures.

Shill.

 

[beachnut]

From wiki, now deleted???

Termit-Niels is the synonym for the Danish "scientist" Niels Harrit, who has sniffed a little too much of his MEK-Solution and has also injected a small bit into his veins. Termit-Niels and his fellow brainwashed followers are actually hobos found in the dust of the WTC ruins, who travel around in the northern part of Europe, spreading their hopeless and paranoid "truth". In Steven E. Jones and Termit-Niels' article about Nanothermite, called "The loaded diaper" by most of the real scientists, he writes about paint and fly ash, but somehow he managed to conclude that he actually found an explosive composition called paint by sane people. Termit-Niels and his cracksmoking followers can be found on the danish conspiracy website, i11time.dk/, but please keep in mind that they will not allow non cracksmoking sane people as members. As a pending memberaspirant of "i11time" you must complete an IQtest at mensa.org/ to get qualified. The IQ definitely must not pass the 80 limit, but "i11time" can dispense from this rule, if you have been a contestant in all kinds of realityprograms or have made a complete fool out of yourself on public medias.[13] One of i11time.dk's most important tasks is to misinform and catch docile sheep, that has no thoughts of their own, unless their mindguru and God, Termit-Niels, tells them to. Lots of scientific researches have shown that attending Termit-Niels' lectures can some serious braindamage and lead to a severe and painful retardation[14] In early 2010 the Danish government recommended all conspiracyfans to visit i11time.dk/ to make up their mind about the raving loonies at the site and the dangers of Termit-Niels' lectures.

This is 911 truth, loons fooling the gullible.

 

[KDLarsen]

So the hearing was yesterday with a ruling to follow on September 13. Shockingly, none of the major newspapers covered this groundbreaking trial, and the only description I've found was in a journalism trade magazine. Sounds like a fun was had by all, apart from Niels Harrit, who turned up without a lawyer.

Google translate will do a decent enough job, although the headline should read "Do you want to see some dust from the World Trade Center?"
http://www.journalisten.dk/comment/20852
Link to Google translate: http://bit.ly/1cUEIf9

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

The poor Google translator really struggles with Danish.

Though I did like the word "gakgak" per:

Per Hedegaard call in an article from 2010 Harrits theories of 'gakgak'.

 

[Ivan Kminek]

So the hearing was yesterday with a ruling to follow on September 13. Shockingly, none of the major newspapers covered this groundbreaking trial, and the only description I've found was in a journalism trade magazine. Sounds like a fun was had by all, apart from Niels Harrit, who turned up without a lawyer.

Google translate will do a decent enough job, although the headline should read "Do you want to see some dust from the World Trade Center?"
http://www.journalisten.dk/comment/20852
Link to Google translate: http://bit.ly/1cUEIf9

A quote:

Niels Harrit then takes a small plastic bag feet.

"This a dust from the World Trade Center. Judge, I would like to make a scientific demonstration, "said Niels Harrit.

Ref Harrit refuses to perform the demonstration.

I really wonder, what kind of demonstration could Harrit have in mind???

 

[DGM]

A quote:

Niels Harrit then takes a small plastic bag feet.

"This a dust from the World Trade Center. Judge, I would like to make a scientific demonstration, "said Niels Harrit.

Ref Harrit refuses to perform the demonstration.

I really wonder, what kind of demonstration could Harrit have in mind???

Could he be delusional enough to pass a magnet by the bag and expect it to mean something?

Especially after claiming there are different kinds of chips separated by the methods in the paper (despite claims all were the same).

"Truther" inconsistency gives me a headache.

 

[jaydeehess]

A quote:

Niels Harrit then takes a small plastic bag feet.

"This a dust from the World Trade Center. Judge, I would like to make a scientific demonstration, "said Niels Harrit.

Ref Harrit refuses to perform the demonstration.

I really wonder, what kind of demonstration could Harrit have in mind???

Wait? What?

Am I getting this straight? Harrit stated he would like to perform a demonstration, was granted the request, then refused to do so?

I am not a lawyer, don't even play one on TV, but seems to me that if you putz around like that in court here you risk being charged with contempt of court for such court time wasting antics.

 

[ozeco41]

...I really wonder, what kind of demonstration could Harrit have in mind???

..."Truther" inconsistency gives me a headache.

...I am not a lawyer, don't even play one on TV, but seems to me that if you putz around like that in court here you risk being charged with contempt of court for such court time wasting antics.

Remember that the court and the lawyers involved are focused on defamation. Injury to Harrit's reputation in the real world context where his reputation has value. Not in the artificial context of 9/11 conspiracy discussion where his reputation has little value which could be lost to support damages in the tort of defamation.

Unlike many of us the court and the lawyers have not spent months discussing the irrelevant minutiae of whether or not there was thermXte in dust. If they even thought about the issue they would go straight to the question that matters "So what?"

"Dr Harrit if you are correct that some of this material was in the dust - so what? What consequences flow from the presence of that material?"

Then he is faced with two broad choices. He either says "It proves CD" OR "it is of no consequence." He won't take the latter and if he takes the former he has aligned himself with what is easily shown to the court to be a recognised conspiracy position held by a very small minority. Whilst the overwhelming body of relevant professional opinion says "No CD". And where chemistry is not even the relevant profession.

Keep in focus that the question which may relate to alleged damage to his reputation is "Was there CD?" It is not "Was there thermXte in the dust?" The court will not be derailed into irrelevancies as easily as we allow ourselves to be deflected in these internet discussions. Even here the true question all along has been "So what?"

If he is supporting CD he proves the truth of the claim which he says has damaged his reputation. The defendant has "no case to answer".

So we need to see the issue in the true context which the Court will see and not the false context we have been allowing here by pursuing the irrelevant minutiae of the chemical evidence.

'coz the court, if it lets him pursue his minutiae will actually be letting him prove the case for the defendant. He will be demonstrating that he is a [whatever the actual word was]. And in most legal jurisdictions truth of the alleged damaging assertions is a full defence against defamation.

 

[DGM]

Remember that the court and the lawyers involved are focused on defamation. Injury to Harrit's reputation in the real world context where his reputation has value. Not in the artificial context of 9/11 conspiracy discussion where his reputation has little value which could be lost to support damages in the tort of defamation.

Unlike many of us the court and the lawyers have not spent months discussing the irrelevant minutiae of whether or not there was thermXte in dust. If they even thought about the issue they would go straight to the question that matters "So what?"

"Dr Harrit if you are correct that some of this material was in the dust - so what? What consequences flow from the presence of that material?"

Then he is faced with two broad choices. He either says "It proves CD" OR "it is of no consequence." He won't take the latter and if he takes the former he has aligned himself with what is easily shown to the court to be a recognised conspiracy position held by a very small minority. Whilst the overwhelming body of relevant professional opinion says "No CD". And where chemistry is not even the relevant profession.

Keep in focus that the question which may relate to alleged damage to his reputation is "Was there CD?" It is not "Was there thermXte in the dust?" The court will not be derailed into irrelevancies as easily as we allow ourselves to be deflected in these internet discussions. Even here the true question all along has been "So what?"

If he is supporting CD he proves the truth of the claim which he says has damaged his reputation. The defendant has "no case to answer".

So we need to see the issue in the true context which the Court will see and not the false context we have been allowing here by pursuing the irrelevant minutiae of the chemical evidence.

'coz the court, if it lets him pursue his minutiae will actually be letting him prove the case for the defendant. He will be demonstrating that he is a [whatever the actual word was]. And in most legal jurisdictions truth of the alleged damaging assertions is a full defence against defamation.

What is the chance Harrit sees it this way?

I agree with you as to the separation of the issue at hand (in the courts eye) but, I doubt Harrit sees it this way.

In my opinion. He sees a venue and hopes he can use it to forward his belief.

 

[ozeco41]

...In my opinion. He sees a venue and hopes he can use it to forward his belief.

I tend to agree.

And, by doing so he destroys his own case.

Cannot be sure when dealing with deluded people with whom the concept of "thinking clearly" has no meaning.

 

[DGM]

I tend to agree.

And, by doing so he destroys his own case.

Cannot be sure when dealing with deluded people with whom the concept of "thinking clearly" has no meaning.

You have to wonder this when the question is harm to credibility in a subject that has never shown credibility.

Harrit is essentially complaining about being lumped into the company he keeps.

This defense never goes well in court.

 

[Africanus]

Wait? What?

Am I getting this straight? Harrit stated he would like to perform a demonstration, was granted the request, then refused to do so?

If I understood the article correctly, his demonstration was denied by the judge.