In 1593 Galileo Galilei lived in the Italian city of Pisa. Among other things, he amused himself by throwing various objects from the Leaning Tower - throughout the city's attention.
These tests are considered as the starting point for science. It was the first quantitative, systematic experiments in science history and led to the establishment of Galileo's two falls laws describing bodies' free fall towards the ground.
Galileo's experiments were of great importance, and the results were the basis for such Newton's famous Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica, published in the 1687th
It contains Newton's three laws, the other of which is a mathematical, the direct derivation of Galileo 2 law of gravitation.
My lecture is about the collapse of the three skyscrapers in Manhattan, 11th September 2001.
I demonstrate here, based on figures, data and observations using the scientific method that the three skyscrapers in the World Trade Center did not collapse as a result of a collision with the two jets.
This conclusion is a direct consequence of Galileo's case laws of Newton's three laws of motion - and the law of conservation of energy.
In other words: The official explanation is inconsistent with the most basic laws of science.
Soren Villemoes' article in the Weekend newspaper is headed
MADNESS IN THE BLACK DIAMOND! (The Black Diamond is the nickname of the Royal Library building. KDL)
The article is certainly not humorous, but offers terms such as "offensive nonsense '," the mad frenzy "," diplomatic and scientific mess ", etc..
We got a picture of a veritable madhouse.
When Soren Villemoes should illustrate the madness which he believes has at the Royal. Library, he wrote the following:
"Should we have a poster with creationist plattenslageri to town on one of the finest information institutions? Why not just invite Niels Harrit and the other idiots from 9/11 skeptic environment now we're at it? What about Holocaust denier environment?"
As explained, my scientific work rooted in science deepest reason. Juxtaposing it with "creationist plattenslageri" and "Holocaust denial" implies an unequivocal accusation of scientific misconduct and thus a charge.
Academic dishonesty is something University of Copenhagen does not like, which include seen in the case against Elena Penkova.
A charge must be documented.
But defendant has not at all been able to document its accusations - yes, have even demonstrated complete ignorance of my scientific activities.
During the hearing of evidence, Soren Villemoes acknowledged
1) That he is completely without means to understand and criticize scientific problems,
2) That he has attended one of my lectures. This claim, however, appear as untrustworthy as Soren Villemoes could not remember where and when he was at this lecture. It is called selective memory. When questioned, he acknowledged that he had nothing to criticize the lecture. As can therefore be assumed that he could remember? It's hard to believe this explanation.
3) That he has read the scientific article that describes the content of dust from the World Trade Center and is authored by yours truly, along with eight other authors. Then he made accusations against our samples authenticity despite the "chain of custody" is thoroughly described in the article. Soren Villemoes accusing us undisguised of falsifying samples! It is a crystal clear allegations of scientific misconduct and thus a charge in the criminal sense.
4) The defendant's witnesses characterized him my activities as "pseudo science, revisionist theories" and that I was in violation of "consensus", which was based "in science." Again, this undisguised accusations of scientific misconduct and therefore charges in the criminal sense.
The defamatory statements is set forth in the obvious intention to belittle and ridicule me, which is clearly revealed when Soren Villemoes user predicate "idiot". And it happens - as explained - in a context that is anything but playful.
LEGAL ISSUES
I am not a lawyer. So I looked up lovbasen (legal database. KDL), Posted 03/06/2002, last modified 18/08/2011.
Under "libel" can also include read:
The Criminal Code defines two forms of defamation (§ 267): First, "offensive words or actions" also called contempt utterances. First, "charges", that is insulting accusations.
The old formulations of the Criminal Code must be interpreted in accordance with the Human Rights Court. The distinction between value judgments and accusations (same as charges). '
The value judgments that includes opinions and ratings shall not special requirements for documentation. Value judgments can not be proved or disproved, and there may be a requirement that assessments have some factual basis.
But accusations (equivalent to "charges" in the Danish Criminal Code), appears as facts, and here required documentation.
The specific context determines whether an utterance most emerging as a fact or most similar to an opinion or judgment.
Human Rights Court has in recent decades been important in the Danish courts. It is emphasized that the subject has "public interest" or "public interest" and is dismissed if information is based on research that meets the standards of good journalism. "
MATERIAL COLLECTION FROM SØREN JUUL
Lawyer Søren Juul sent the day before yesterday (d.14/8-2013) a collection of material to highlight the importance of Danish case law on Article 10 of the European Menneskeretttighedskonvention (Human Rights convention. KDL).
The distinction
One consequence, as we read in Schaumburg-Müller's article,
P. 8: "The problem with this simple theoretical distinction (ie between accusation and defamatory utterances / NH) is that it is not particularly useful in practice."
P.9: "Often it will not be necessary to use the distinction."
P.9: "The distinction can not form the basis of (criminal) court judgment."
In truth proof (Schaumburg-Müller continued)
P.9: ".... it was in breach of Article 10 to require proof of the truth" value judgments "when they also were based on correct facts."
P.9: "There is no truth required evidence of value judgments when they are based on anything factual."
P.9: "In my judgment can not therefore deprive truth of proof in libel cases, at least not if the case is just some public interest."
P.11: "Danish practice, however, examples of the limits of press freedom, the more stringent requirements for the information content in the case of individuals."
P.15: "... the practice of EMD does not accept punishment for assessments made on the basis of facts."
NH: Which all means that assessments are not made on the basis of facts, shall be liable to punishment.
Oluf Jørgensen Article
Page 19: "An accusation is permissible only if the journalist or other writer in the publication has a reasonably sound basis for believing in the accuracy."
Page 20: "There can be no requirement of proof of an opinion or judgment. But it may not be completely without factual basis."
NH CONCLUSION: Although value judgments must have a minimum of factual basis.
Supreme Court Decision in Case of Kjaersgaard
Karen Sund was convicted of libel in the High Court.
But she will be acquitted by the Supreme Court.
In the Supreme Court premises writes, p 39:
"The European Convention on Human distinguish whether there is a value judgment (" value judgment ") or an opinion on a fact (" statement of fact "). May be required indeed evidence of a statement of fact, but not a value judgment, which should not be excessive ("excessive") and below must not entirely lack a factual basis. "
Supreme Court acquits her because:
Page 41: "The use of the word (racist) ..... have had sufficient basis in Pia Kjærsgaards opinions on the Danish People's Party's annual meeting."
CONCLUSION: The Supreme Court's decision implies therefore that the acquittal of making defamatory statements requires - even for value judgments - that there must be a factual basis.
END OF LEGAL ARGUMENTS
Primary: Alleged criminal charges
As a summary and conclusions of the review of these legal references must begin by finding that the Danish Criminal Code is not written on. Criminal Code defamation clause no 267 - and particularly the aggravating circumstances in paragraph 3 if the insults disseminated to a wider circle - is still Danish law.
In Lovbasen operates with the notion of "the specific context" that determines whether a defamatory utterance is a charge or a value judgment.
This "specific context" includes today's hearing and Soren Villemoes's testimony, where he has characterized my activities as pseudoscience.
In his article in the Weekend newspaper has Søren Villemoes demonstrated that his placement of my scientific work in the category of "creationist plattenslageri" and "Holocaust denial" - the specific context - clearly implies an allegation of scientific misconduct.
And it is a charge that requires a truly evidence to prevail.
We have not seen truth evidence today. Yes we have not even lifted us from the bottom line.
Thus, the defendant has not made a single witness who could substantiate their charges.
The banks can not. (Mistranslation. KDL)
That's because I'm right.
Alternative opinions are "value judgments"
Should it - contrary to expectations - be that the court finds that Sean Villemoes' statements are value judgments made there - even in the Human Rights Court - the requirement that assessments have some factual basis.
From Soren Juul Material Collection I have enumerated many examples from case law and literature that a factual basis is an absolute condition to impunity can be obtained for a defamatory utterance.
For press this minimum requirement is fulfilled only if the defamatory statements are based on "research that meets the standards of good journalism ...".
I need not emphasize that SV's article does not meet this requirement and hence the requirement of impunity.
So - in this case it really matter whether one adopts the Danish Criminal Code distinction between criminal charges and contemptuous expression, or accept the concept of the convergence of Clause 10 of the ECHR and the subsequent case.
The defendant has demonstrated that he can under no circumstances provide a factual basis, this minimum, there must be, that he can achieve impunity for making defamatory statements - whether charges or value judgments.
Therefore I maintain the claim - that the defendants partly for libel, and the spread of such.
CLEARANCE
Until seven years ago, I thought that the World Trade Center consisted of two twin towers and they collapsed due to collision with the two jets.
Then I happen to be a video showing the collapse of World Trade Center 7
I immediately had two problems.
If what I saw really was the World Trade Center, there was an obvious discrepancy between the number of airplanes and skyscrapers. There were two jets, but three skyscrapers.
Which - still the first - meant that the people who control the media information in Denmark, had decided that the collapse of Building 7 was an event that I should not know about.
Secondly, I could not understand why this building would collapse for no apparent reason.
I have lived a long life in science after I received a thorough education at the University 50 years ago.
I have taught at all levels of chemistry at the University of Copenhagen. I have published more than 60 scientific papers in the best journals. I have lost count of the number of masters - and Ph.D. is I've trained. I belong to a generation where we did not keep records of the kind.
Science Men have an instinctive, analytical relation to our physical surroundings. We I would like to understand how it works.
In all modesty, so it goes pretty well most of the time.
But at the sight of Building 7's collapse, I was confronted with an inexplicable riddle: How on earth could this skyscraper - three times Rigshospitalet - collapse on the way?
Symmetrical, I could see.
With free fall acceleration - I had to later admit.
Without any apparent reason?
It took me several weeks to understand that this event was the most important event in my time and that I had to look at it.
Which led me - and thousands of peers across the globe - to the conclusion that there was an obvious contradiction between the official story on the one hand and the elementary laws of nature on the other.
The official story is simply contrary to Galileo and Newton.
At that moment, it was "pay-back time" for me.
I got my (excellent) education of society in his time. And society has paid my salary in the over forty years that I have taught and researched at the Department of Chemistry, University of Copenhagen.
My inner voice - Kant's categorical imperative - said that now it was time to bring this scientific insight back - into the public debate.
I was naive enough to believe that if only we stood on a soap box and told the truth, then ran it all by itself.
Nix. (Nope. KDL)
My idea of the Danish press and integrity of the persons who control it, was naive.
Therefore this lawsuit basically not about me.
The act effectively on the information I have tried to give the Danish public, and - most importantly - it is about an influential representative of the Danish press, a prominent newspaper, which is widely respected for its high journalistic standard.
But in this case Weekend newspaper tried to discredit the messenger rather than listen to what he says.
Yes, the truth hurts.
But the lie is killing us!
Lawyer Juul likely in a moment rely on the press right to use a certain freedom of speech on matters of public interest. But journalists who speak out about Bruno Kreitsky whether Haider - which are the examples Søren Juul has brought in his collection of materials - allocated a certain space, I can not see is relevant to this case.
It had dressed Søren Juul if he had instead pointed to libel law, where scientists had been wrongly accused of dishonesty and where the infringer had been acquitted.
You can apparently he did not find any.
It's not because scientists have not been subjected to sanctions from society because of their work.
I therefore conclude by telling you about the most famous of all these cases.
Galileo Galilei was commissioned by the Catholic Church to write a book about the world's decor. But based on his observations - and the earlier work of Copernicus, Tycho Brahe and Johannes Kepler - he wrote that the sun was the center of the world, and that the earth revolved around outside.
It broke the church is not about.
So in 1633 was Galilei before the Inquisition. We do not know how he was treated in the four months he spent in detention before trial. He filled moreover seventy along the way. But we know that during the trial itself was established instruments of torture in a corner of the room, presumably to ensure - as it did - that the old man in the bar shirt, got down on his knees for there to swear that the earth stood still in the center of the universe.
Galileo's book came on the church's list of banned books and was for 1838.
Our civilization has made great progress since Galileo's time. And although the torture has come into fashion again at other latitudes in the wake of 11 September has still liberalism Grundtvig Denmark, where scientists can provide information about natural law, their consequences without being accused of dishonesty and exposed to other insults.
I expect the court with its decision today confirms this state.
Thank you.
blush
