Harrit sues paper for defamation

Thanks for all that, KDLarsen. :thumbsup:

"How about putting a display of creationist fraud in one of Denmark's finest educational institutions? Why not just invite Niels Harrit and the other fools from the 9/11 sceptics' environment while we're at it? How about the Holocaust denial movement?"

It's a bit of a leap to say they're directly calling Harrit an idiot or a Holocaust denier, but I am not a lawyer, and who knows what the parties will argue.
 
It's so funny he thinks this is some kind of landmark case.
Anyone is entitled to call someones theory crazy or idiotic - it just signifies a personal opinion of something/someone. Harrit keeps claiming that "tosse" refers to being mentally ill, which may have been the case many years ago, but certainly isn't now.
He also keeps forgetting that his 9/11-work is not a part of his field or academic "legacy", so calling his truther-activities crazy is not putting down his academic career.
 
I am a little confused, maybe I missed this. Has this information already been presented to the court, or did he release this early?
 
KDLarsen said:
The hearing was last thursday (the 16th).
Click to expand...

Oh, ok. My fault. I was thinking to myself how stupid it would be to release your final commentary before the actual court hearing. Like a poker player playing with his cards facing out.

spanx said:
I think the Galileo bit is his party piece. The following clip is from earlier this year when he was unable to present his evidence in court. Looks to me like the same crap different court room.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQ8Cr...eature=youtube
Click to expand...

What a loon.
 
plague311 said:
Is he...is he comparing himself to Galileo?
Click to expand...

Spanx said:
I think the Galileo bit is his party piece. The following clip is from earlier this year when he was unable to present his evidence in court. Looks to me like the same crap different court room.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQ8CrAIEyl8&feature=youtube
Click to expand...
It rather epitomises the standard of Truther "science" and "research" in general and Harrit's in specific:

  1. Galileo didn't drop anything from the tower in Pisa, it was a thought experiment
  2. The story about the tower was fabricated by his biographer/pupil Viviani
  3. It was supposed to have occurred in 1589 not 1593
  4. In 1593 Galileo wasn't in Pisa but Padua
:rolleyes:
 
LSSBB said:
Kool. Link?
Click to expand...

http://www.journalisten.dk/comment/21220

Translated:

Soren Villemoes acquitted of calling Niels Harrit for 'idiot'

Soren Villemoes, in a comment in the Weekend newspaper has described the scientist Niels Harrit as a 'freak', has today been acquitted by the Copenhagen City Court in a libel case brought by the retired lecturer



The best part:

Niels Harrit is a judgment was ordered to pay the costs of 15,000 kronor. ($2670.51 dollars)

Harrit had demanded an apology and compensation of 25,000 kroner.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Mr.Herbert said:
http://www.journalisten.dk/comment/21220

Translated:

Soren Villemoes acquitted of calling Niels Harrit for 'idiot'

Soren Villemoes, in a comment in the Weekend newspaper has described the scientist Niels Harrit as a 'freak', has today been acquitted by the Copenhagen City Court in a libel case brought by the retired lecturer



The best part:
Click to expand...

So he should be awarded costs against Harrit just to rub it in
 
Orphia Nay said:
:D Does this mean Harrit is now officially an idiot?
Click to expand...

Nah. He's legally an idiot, but only in Denmark.

Elsewhere the jury is still out, but they wandered off for snacks, games of bridge, family birthday dinners and camping holdays in the mountains, and it's unlikely they'll be bothered to re-convene.
 
GlennB said:
Nah. He's legally an idiot, but only in Denmark.

Elsewhere the jury is still out, but they wandered off for snacks, games of bridge, family birthday dinners and camping holdays in the mountains, and it's unlikely they'll be bothered to re-convene.
Click to expand...

:D

George152 said:
So he should be awarded costs against Harrit just to rub it in
Click to expand...

This article says that amount is for costs.

http://jyllands-posten.dk/kultur/ECE5950487/dom-man-ma-godt-kalde-9-11-skeptiker-en-tosse/

"Det bliver dog i stedet Harrit selv, som skal betale 15.000 kr. for sagens omkostninger."

Which Google translates as:

"However, it is rather Harrit themselves who have to pay 15,000 for the costs."
 
Orphia Nay said:
:D Does this mean Harrit is now officially an idiot?
Click to expand...
The fun answer is "Yes - it certainly looks like it."

The strict legal position is not clear to me at this time.

We don't know if the issue of defining "idiocy" ("tosse" or similar IIRC.) was considered by the court.

The variations on the theme are too many to speculate - so one example will have to suffice until we see the transcript. (If ever. :))

The argument could be that:

1) "idiots" was shown to be accepted by the relevant community as applying to 9/11 Conspiracy adherents; AND

2) that Harrit had by his own action aligned with those conspiracy adherents who are regarded as "idiots" by the relevant community; AND

3) that any damage to his reputation was caused by his own alignment with those who are known to be regarded as "idiots".

If those were the steps then the courts consideration of the facts would stop at that point. Harrit loses on basis of 1, 2 and 3. Particularly "3".

So the question of whether Harrit qualifies as an "idiot" would not even be looked at by the court. The issue remains moot.

In that event what could be said to be legally accepted was that he aligned with a class of persons who are commonly regarded as idiots. That does not make him an idiot nor does it imply that the court ruled that he was an idiot. (BTW nor does the court rule whether the conspiracy adherents are in fact idiots.)

There are multiple legal possibilities and speculation before we see the transcript could be way off the track.

(And every use of "idiot" or "idiocy" in this statement needs to be read as reference to the actual Danish word - "tosse" and derivatives as far as I amaware.)
 
Yes, thanks, ozeco.

The court may have just decided that Harrit failed to prove any harm was done by being called an "idiot".
 
Orphia Nay said:
Yes, thanks, ozeco.

The court may have just decided that Harrit failed to prove any harm was done by being called an "idiot".
Click to expand...

Correct. (And more concisely stated than my version :o )

Courts do not consider issues of fact which are irrelevant.


(And everything that Harrit wanted to say was probably irrelevant. IMNSHO all the technical issues of fact about thermXte would be irrelevant.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom