• 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.

Harrit sues paper for defamation

KDLarsen

Philosopher
K
Joined
Dec 6, 2007
Messages
5,636
Only found a Danish version of the story, but evidently Niels Harrit doesn't like being called a crackpot and likened to a holocaust denier. So he has decided to sue Weekendavisen (a weekly newspaper with slightly more depth to their stories) over a story brought by the paper, because apparently it's an insult to his professional reputation :rolleyes:

The background story of the article involves The Royal Library hosting an exhibition on the Armenian genocide, in which they decided to include a "counter-exhibition" from the Turkish embassy, and the writer then asks what else to expect: "A creationist poster in our highest places of learning? Why not invite Niels Harrit and the other crackpots from the 9/11-sceptics' environment? What about the Holocaust denial environment?".

Story in Danish can be found here, I'll see if any of the English-language medias pick it up: http://epn.dk/medier/aviser/article4971404.ece

Edit: The story also has a comment from Harrit about how Weekendavisen refuses to accept 9/11 conspiracy articles, and how he has enough rejected articles to poster his wall by now.
 
Last edited:
Insult to his professional reputation as a crackpot and 9/11 denier? Whats the problem here..
 
Miragememories said:
It does give Dr. Harrit the opportunity to defend the legitimacy of his views in court.

MM
Click to expand...
I think it would be imprudent legal tactics if his objective in taking it to court is so that he wins the defamation action.

I am not familiar with Danish Law but judged by the relevant law regimes coming from the English Common Law tradition - i.e. UK, most US, Ca, Au etc he would be advised to limit consideration to his established reputation as a professional scientist and avoiding his 9/11 "sideline" activities.

The basic legal points being:
a) Defamation is an action in tort which seeks to recover "damages" for "injury" - in this case injury to reputation and "damages" is the technical name for the sum of money awarded as recompense for the injury.
b) The quantum of "damages" depends on assessment of the extent of injury.
c) His reputation as a professional is valued by factors such as what salary he could attract in the field. So if the defamation has reduced his "hire value" for a period of time reduction in hire value multiplied by time would be key factors plus some allowance for "pain and suffering".
d) There is no job market for 9/11 Nut Scientists whether or not you accept that title. Only one full time paid job that I am aware of and that one held by R Gage.
e) So even if he demonstrated that his reputation in that arena - 9/11 Nuttery - had been damaged the quantum of damages would be miniscule is any. Verdicts of "Proven but of no value" are established in defamation history - with peppercorn or token $1 awards being granted.
f)Contrast if he can limit court consideration to his historic career in science he could well establish a case for loss of income and prestige in that arena.
g) Introducing 9/11 woo into the objective evidence reviewing climate of a court case would be imprudent because adding nonsense to sound science will only reduce his credibility.
h) If he was ill advised and introduced his 9/11 activities into court he would leave them fully exposed to cross examination and counter claim. And they would not stand up to rigorous testing.

So, if the objective is to win the defamation action he would be advised to avoid bringing his 9/11 activities into the legal action.

HOWEVER
The obvious alternative objective is to give him a platform to gain publicity for his 9/11 activities. Then none of the forgoing legal advice applies.

No matter how the case runs he would be free to represent it with whatever mix of honesty and deception he chooses. And his audience ceases to be the hard thinking objectivity of Judge and Courtroom - replaced by the gullible target for 9/11 woo.

All legal aspects then become means to his end.

I expect that Harrit is quite capable of selecting his objective. We can sit back and see which one it is. :)
 
Last edited:
KDLarsen said:
Only found a Danish version of the story, but evidently Niels Harrit doesn't like being called a crackpot and likened to a holocaust denier. So he has decided to sue Weekendavisen (a weekly newspaper with slightly more depth to their stories) over a story brought by the paper, because apparently it's an insult to his professional reputation :rolleyes:

The background story of the article involves The Royal Library hosting an exhibition on the Armenian genocide, in which they decided to include a "counter-exhibition" from the Turkish embassy, and the writer then asks what else to expect: "A creationist poster in our highest places of learning? Why not invite Niels Harrit and the other crackpots from the 9/11-sceptics' environment? What about the Holocaust denial environment?".

Story in Danish can be found here, I'll see if any of the English-language medias pick it up: http://epn.dk/medier/aviser/article4971404.ece

Edit: The story also has a comment from Harrit about how Weekendavisen refuses to accept 9/11 conspiracy articles, and how he has enough rejected articles to poster his wall by now.
Click to expand...

According to the Google translation of the linked article the reporter called him a 'freak' and a 'fool' :D

ozeco41 said:
I think it would be imprudent legal tactics if his objective in taking it to court is so that he wins the defamation action.

[...]


HOWEVER
The obvious alternative objective is to give him a platform to gain publicity for his 9/11 activities. Then none of the forgoing legal advice applies.

No matter how the case runs he would be free to represent it with whatever mix of honesty and deception he chooses. And his audience ceases to be the hard thinking objectivity of Judge and Courtroom - replaced by the gullible target for 9/11 woo.

All legal aspects then become means to his end.

I expect that Harrit is quite capable of selecting his objective. We can sit back and see which one it is. :)
Click to expand...

I had the same impression, he wants to bring attention to his cause.
 
Miragememories said:
It does give Dr. Harrit the opportunity to defend the legitimacy of his views in court.

MM
Click to expand...

How so?

Can you explain the case objectives, court procedings and the legal strategy that would give rise to such an opportunity?
 
Oystein said:
How so?

Can you explain the case objectives, court procedings and the legal strategy that would give rise to such an opportunity?
Click to expand...
Good idea Oystein.
thumbup.gif


Such an explanation would give me the opportunity to compare the Danish legal processing of an action in defamation with the Common Law processes. :teacher:
 
ozeco41 said:
I think it would be imprudent legal tactics if his objective in taking it to court is so that he wins the defamation action.

I am not familiar with Danish Law but judged by the relevant law regimes coming from the English Common Law tradition - i.e. UK, most US, Ca, Au etc he would be advised to limit consideration to his established reputation as a professional scientist and avoiding his 9/11 "sideline" activities.

The basic legal points being:
a) Defamation is an action in tort which seeks to recover "damages" for "injury" - in this case injury to reputation and "damages" is the technical name for the sum of money awarded as recompense for the injury.
...
Click to expand...

Wiki says:
"Defamation ... is the communication of a statement that makes a claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual ... a negative or inferior image. ... In Common Law it is usually a requirement that this claim be false
...
In Denmark, libel is a crime, as defined by Article 267 of the Danish Criminal Code, with a penalty of up to six months in prison or a fine, with proceedings initiated by the victim. ..."
Click to expand...
Question is whether, under Danish law, the communication would have to be false in order to qualify as libel. A document linked by Wiki has some detail, but does not touch upon the "false?" question:
Section 267 of the Danish Criminal Code concerns libel and provides sanctions for the violation of the personal honour of another citizen by offensive words or conduct or by making or spreading allegations of an act likely to discredit him in the esteem of his fellow citizens. Such acts are sanctioned with a fine or imprisonment not exceeding 4 months. The punishment may be increased to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months. Proceedings are initiated by the victim.
Click to expand...
Note however that there is no word on Civil Code in the Denmark on defamation! In most civil law countries (and I presume Denmark is one of those - correct me if I am wrong!) defamation and libel are "predominantly a criminal offence. Private law suits for damages ... are relatively unusual".

Perhaps KDLarsen can help us with the basics of Danish law?
 
Last edited:
Beat me to the research Oystein. I paused to get lunch. (12:30 Monday here)

Interesting that:
a) it is criminal law; AND
b) That it looks like a citizen can initiate an action in criminal jurisdiction.

Both those are different to Common Law traditions where UK, US, AU have all drifted apart somewhat but the foundations of English common Law still setting the framework. Defamation is civil and citizens can but rarely do initiate criminal jurisdiction actions.

I didn't touch on the true or false aspect. Truth of a statement was always a strong defence under English law - cannot recall whether it was sure defence or not. Changes in Australian law have weakened it significantly as a defence - the claim rests on injury to the victim which results from the publication of the defamatory matter. So a true fact not made public could cause injury if published and the offence is in the publishing. Makes sense even though it has far reaching implications.

A side issue the distinctions between "slander" and "libel' have been abolished under AU law - both now dealt with as defamation.

as for the rest:
Oystein said:
Wiki says:

Question is whether, under Danish law, the communication would have to be false in order to qualify as libel. A document linked by Wiki has some detail, but does not touch upon the "false?" question:

Note however that there is no word on Civil Code in the Denmark on defamation! In most civil law countries (and I presume Denmark is one of those - correct me if I am wrong!) defamation and libel are "predominantly a criminal offence. Private law suits for damages ... are relatively unusual".

Perhaps KDLarsen can help us with the basics of Danish law?
Click to expand...
I'm effectively as much a layman here as you are - so I won't pursue the legal niceties any further. We could have a Danish lawyer come along and show me my errors.....:D
 
Oystein said:
Question is whether, under Danish law, the communication would have to be false in order to qualify as libel.
Click to expand...

The communication cannot be evaluated as true or false. It is an opinion statement. The author of the piece of is making a statement about an entirely different topic (the idea of a "rebuttal" to an exhibition on the Armenian Genocide) by comparing it to well-known examples of poor scholarship. In any nation that values freedom of the press, it is well within the range of fair comment.

This is just a Chilling Effect lawsuit. Harrit's butthurt that he's been equated with crackpots, and he's going to drag the newspaper into court so they don't do it again.
 
I often compare the "truthers" v "truth" situation with the "creationists" v "evolution" argument.

In both situations one side has all the evidence - the other side has nothing.

There is a thread here trying to compare the "best arguments" from both sides of the "truth" discussion. Just as with creationism/evolution it is a false comparison. There is no "truther" argument - no truther "side". BTW that is their own strategic mistake of basing their claim on technical falsehoods such as CD at WTC. Easily disproved in an objective forum. So I would like to see a "truther case" before a US Federal court rather than a Danish one.

Have you read the transcript and judgement for Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District that one is "Intelligent Design v Evolution" tried in the US federal Jurisdiction. Well worthy of a read if you want to see people of the level and style of truthers confronted in the hard objective setting of a court room with cross examination. Simply put 9/11 truth nonsense would be destroyed if anyone tried to defend it in a court scene. It is the last thing any intelligent truthers would want. (Did I just write "intelligent truther" - sorry about the oxymoron :o)

The big difference however is that imposition of religion is covered by the First Amendment - Lying for 9/11 Truth is not. My knowledge of US Constitution Law is not good enough to go any deeper.

But the big shock to the truther clowns we see around here is that in a Court setting they would not get away with most of the nonsense we allow them to post on this forum. Circling and evasions would put them at risk of "Contempt of Court" and lying would be readily exposed. IIRC that happened with at least one of the religious witnesses in Kitzmiller.
 
Last edited:
Lol, I just googled Neills Harrit holocaust.

It looks like he is a victim of his own making. I think he must have got in with the wrong crowd :D
 
Triterope said:
The communication cannot be evaluated as true or false. It is an opinion statement. The author of the piece of is making a statement about an entirely different topic (the idea of a "rebuttal" to an exhibition on the Armenian Genocide) by comparing it to well-known examples of poor scholarship. In any nation that values freedom of the press, it is well within the range of fair comment.

This is just a Chilling Effect lawsuit. Harrit's butthurt that he's been equated with crackpots, and he's going to drag the newspaper into court so they don't do it again.
Click to expand...
That's my understanding of it. In the article he's quoted as "looking forward to see how they intend to prove that (he's) a fool", and that he's demanding a right to reply to the allegations.

Presumably the latter ties in with his complaint that the newspaper refuses to accept 9/11-CT related submissions.
 
Under Common Law a fundamental tenet of tort in defamation is that a person is not entitled to a false reputation. That is, regardless of what points the defendant raises in defense of his reputation, the question of a person's reputation for purposes of defamation is not solely a product of how he wishes to present himself at some time and place; it instead the sum total of all that he has done to attract attention. Hence the plaintiff can surely acknowledge that the defendant has accomplished some things legitimately, then go on to point out all the other things the defendant has done in the public eye which contribute to his overall public reputation.

So Harrit can meekly point to his career as an academic scientist, chemist, and what-not to say that he has enjoyed a certain reputation as a serious scientist, which has been damaged by others calling him a freak. But then the plaintiff can just as easily point out that Harrit has sought publicity for his views on 9/11 and has made many public statements about "no planes," about "nano-thermite," and all his other conspiracy-related views. And his reputation, for the purposes of determining defamation, is the sum total of all that. Someone who specifically distances himself from his colleagues and who purposely offers a minority view and calls attention to himself for it in an international forum is expected to have a thick skin and to expect some criticism. People cannot style themselves as mavericks and then complain when they are treated as such. If one has specifically cultivated that image, he may not suddenly claim a different (false) image in court. Defamation does not allow him to enjoy that; one must endure the criticism that one's public actions may merit.
 
JayUtah said:
Under Common Law a fundamental tenet of tort in defamation is that a person is not entitled to a false reputation. That is, regardless of what points the defendant raises in defense of his reputation, the question of a person's reputation for purposes of defamation is not solely a product of how he wishes to present himself at some time and place; it instead the sum total of all that he has done to attract attention.
Click to expand...
It's not a Common Law jurisdiction BUT the general principles will probably be similar.

My post crossed with yours - my point simply put being that he has to a large extent made his own bed by raising his profile in a crazy arena.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom