Harrit sues paper for defamation

[JayUtah]

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.

Yes, I'm sorry, that was essentially my point. While Danish law undoubtedly differs from Common Law, I'm relying on the wisdom of the seminal tome The Law of Torts, which was written early enough to encompass not only English Common Law but the general legal theory of defamation throughout the civilized world.

As you say, Harrit has largely made his own bed and it is up to him now to lay in it. It is too late for him to adopt a false reputation as a respectable scientist free of harmful controversy.

Merely rendering a low opinion of someone does not generally defame him, except that under Danish law certain protected classes similar to those in the United States are entitled not to be defamed according to the properties of the protected class. However matters of pure opinion such as "fool" or "freak" would probably not be actionable.

While it is one possible defense against defamation to prove that the allegations made are true, it is not the best or only defense. As stated, opinions are generally not actionable because they are not allegations of fact. I may think you a fool and you may think me a fool and we may publish those opinions, but others are free to form their own opinions. Hence defamation does not generally arise. It arises from allegations of fact, that a reasonable person would be likely to believe and would serve to cause that reasonable person to form his own low opinion of me. To present my own judgment and ask you to accept it is not defamatory. To feed you false information that would entice you to judge inappropriately, is defamatory.

The question of truth is not whether Harrit's claims are true, but whether the defendant's claims (i.e., those in defamation) are true. As the product of the defendant's judgment, and not matters of objectively scrutable fact, they are inherently neither true nor false. Harrit's public statements may be perfectly true, but the plaintiff's judgment may not be swayed by them. Creationists call skeptics all manner of vile names and render all manner of public judgment against them, regardless of the truth of the skeptics' statements. So long as the Creationists merely render opinions and refrain from offering statements of putatively credible fact, they do not defame.

 

[jaydeehess]

The question of truth is not whether Harrit's claims are true, but whether the defendant's claims (i.e., those in defamation) are true. As the product of the defendant's judgment, and not matters of objectively scrutable fact, they are inherently neither true nor false. Harrit's public statements may be perfectly true, but the plaintiff's judgment may not be swayed by them. Creationists call skeptics all manner of vile names and render all manner of public judgment against them, regardless of the truth of the skeptics' statements. So long as the Creationists merely render opinions and refrain from offering statements of putatively credible fact, they do not defame.

So it would be defamation if the writer had called Harrit "a fool and sexual abuser of small puppies. I know this to be true!", but not simply a fool.

 

[JayUtah]

So it would be defamation if the writer had called Harrit "a fool and sexual abuser of small puppies. I know this to be true!", but not simply a fool.

Under Common Law yes, the offending statement would need to contain a putatively credible allegation of fact. But it has been appropriately belabored that Danish criminal law is not the same as the law of torts in England. To wit, the relevant section of the Danish criminal code reads in part (in official translation):

Anybody who offends another person's honor by insulting words or actions or by stating or disseminating charges, that are suitable for reducing the insulted person in the esteem of fellow citizens, will be punished by fine or ordinary imprisonment.

For those who read Danish:

267. Den, som krænker en andens ære ved fornærmelige ord eller handlinger eller ved at fremsætte eller udbrede sigtelser for et forhold, der er egnet til at nedsætte den fornærmede i medborgeres agtelse, straffes med bøde eller fængsel indtil 4 måneder.

In any case, it seems to cast a much broader net, so much so that English Common Law may be largely irrelevant to help us understand the merit of the case.

"Insulting" and "offensive" seem to be the qualifying English adjectives attempting to render the original Danish sentiment, but subsequent sections indicate that the truth of the statement may bear on whether they are considered insulting or offensive. Incidentally Denmark appears to be one of the countries in which proving the truth of the statement does not entirely let you off the hook for defamation, and which allows penalties even for defamation of deceased persons. These are interesting only in letting us know the severity of the crime under Danish law. Mitigating this is the "public interest" clause, which would seem to favor the role of a newspaper.

 

[ozeco41]

Meanwhile I have been motivated to check the Aussie situation - which also is not relevant to Danish Law.

Background is that as a qualified civil engineer from way back (1965) I studied law in 2001-5 as a "Mature Age Student" - I could prove "age" and "student" - "mature" being questionable.

So in responding to this thread I didn't open the books just made general comments from memory.

I'm now part way through a learned paper giving the history of Aussie Defamation law from about 1800 till today.

It is naturally a lot more complicated than the simple summary. And what was State Law up till 2005 came under a federal unification of law style of act in 2006. We have several of those - e.g. the Evidence Act. Problem is that the States still retain their own flavours...no compulsion to use he Federal common acts.

...the role of "truth" in criminal libel versus civil defamation actions has been different and a tortuous path of statutory reform since 1830. Even I cannot go back that far

BUT it is all specific to AU, not relevant to Denmark or Harrit.

So I will leave the topic alone. Unless I get out of "lazy poster mood" and try to research and think Danish Style law... and Jay is way ahead of me in that...

Better still point me to an engineering thread....

 

[Hercules Rockefeller]

IANAL, but usually you have to have been wrongfully accused of a criminal act to win a case like this.

 

[Hercules Rockefeller]

Harrit is using this to promote his views on 9/11. Here's the lawsuit, google translated : http://translate.google.com/transla...kendavisen-st-vnet?xg_source=activity&act=url

 

[ozeco41]

Harrit is using this to promote his views on 9/11. Here's the lawsuit, google translated : http://translate.google.com/transla...kendavisen-st-vnet?xg_source=activity&act=url

We should not take the English translation as accurate. In that translation Harrit claims he has been called a "fool" but in his alleged facts he says it was "idiot" - that would lose him the case. HOWEVER it appears that the difference is not in the Danish. it seems to me that the words used are "tosser" and "tosse" respectively - someone with knowledge of Danish may care to check.

 

[Hercules Rockefeller]

"Tosse" in common use is probably more like "loonie" in English.

The Danish definition is:

1. Someone not in their right mind or retarded.

1.a Someone who behaves stupidly, carelessly, crazy or erratically.

 

[Oystein]

Harrit is using this to promote his views on 9/11. Here's the lawsuit, google translated : http://translate.google.com/transla...kendavisen-st-vnet?xg_source=activity&act=url

Oh Geebuz H. Kryst, he is a loonie! He really thinks the court will ask the journalists to debunk Harrit's twoofie claims. Hahaha.

I could have understood if he felt insulted because he was Godwined, as being likened to Nazis is among the prime insults here in central Europe, far worse than being called a loonie. But that is not his beef...

 

[Hercules Rockefeller]

Oh Geebuz H. Kryst, he is a loonie!

Careful, he'll sue ya'!

 

[JayUtah]

Oh Geebuz H. Kryst, he is a loonie!

Yes.

He really thinks the court will ask the journalists to debunk Harrit's twoofie claims. Hahaha.

That's not quite what I'm getting from the complaint. Granted, machine translation from Danish is rudimentary at best. But it seems that his case is, "I'm a scientist with a distinguished career. I don't deserve to be called a tosse for my 9/11 conspiracy beliefs because they're legitimate." In other words, yes he may want to turn the trial into a showcase for his conspiracy claims, but that doesn't mean that's where the point of law will hang nor the defense the defendants may decide to mount.

For example, the defendants may point out that 9/11 conspiracy theorists are widely regarded in the public mind as nut cases and cranks, and that to reflect that characterization in their own writings is not libelous in the sense that it doesn't reduce his esteem in the public mind any more than it already is.

They could also point out that since 9/11 conspiracism has no place in mainstream science, except occasionally to refute it, that Harrit's conscious decision to participate it in is what has affected his reputation as a mainstream scientist -- not merely a newspaper's reporting of it. There is a provision in criminal law that says if the plaintiff's actions have warranted the comment, the defendant is not as liable -- tosse is as tosse does.

None of that would really depend on whether Harrit's claims, or the Truther movement in general, has any legitimate merit. If one publicly engages in behavior that engenders widespread ridicule from the general public (including taking a distinctly minority opinion on a controversial subject), one can't easily single out a lone perpetrator and say that he alone has harmed one's reputation.

But that is not his beef...

It kind of is. The complain mentions being lumped in with Creationists and Holocaust deniers, which he says is deleterious to his reputation as a serious scientist. It's clear he believes his 9/11 rants are serious science while those other things are not, and so he has been unfairly reduced in the esteem of his peers.

 

[Horatius]

it seems to me that the words used are "tosser" and "tosse" respectively - someone with knowledge of Danish may care to check.

Guys we're missing a great opportunity here! We could insult him in two languages simultaneously! "That tosser is so tosser!"

 

[Josarhus]

We should not take the English translation as accurate. In that translation Harrit claims he has been called a "fool" but in his alleged facts he says it was "idiot" - that would lose him the case. HOWEVER it appears that the difference is not in the Danish. it seems to me that the words used are "tosser" and "tosse" respectively - someone with knowledge of Danish may care to check.

Tosse = One fool

Tosser = fools (more than one "tosse")

Tosse can be translated in several ways, for instance fool or idiot.

A “Village idiot” is a “landsbytosse” in Danish, and if there is more than one of them: “landsbytosser”

 

[JayUtah]

Tosse can be translated in several ways, for instance fool or idiot.

How about "crackpot" or "conspiracy theorist?"

...if there is more than one of them: “landsbytosser”

I.e., Washington DC.

 

[Oystein]

That's not quite what I'm getting from the complaint. Granted, machine translation from Danish is rudimentary at best. But it seems that his case is, "I'm a scientist with a distinguished career. I don't deserve to be called a tosse for my 9/11 conspiracy beliefs because they're legitimate." In other words, yes he may want to turn the trial into a showcase for his conspiracy claims, but that doesn't mean that's where the point of law will hang nor the defense the defendants may decide to mount.

For example, the defendants may point out that 9/11 conspiracy theorists are widely regarded in the public mind as nut cases and cranks, ...
[...]
None of that would really depend on whether Harrit's claims, or the Truther movement in general, has any legitimate merit. If one publicly engages in behavior that engenders widespread ridicule from the general public (including taking a distinctly minority opinion on a controversial subject), one can't easily single out a lone perpetrator and say that he alone has harmed one's reputation.

You point out what the defense should argue, and you are right, and it would not depend on whether Harrit's claims on 9/11 have merit or not.

But that is not what Harrit's complaint has in mind. In the "facts" he states in his complains, it is obviously important to him that the question whether or not being called "tosse" is justified hinges on the "fact" that Harrit "put forward a number of scientific arguments for which neither the defendant nor anyone else has been able to refute"

This to me seems to indicate that Harrit wants to convince the court that his arguments have not been refuted. If the court were to go along with that claim and evaluate it, it would amount to asking the defendants if the claim is true, and if they disagree, to show cause. As you point out, that is not likely the way the case is going to go - neither the judges nor the defendants will be interested in debunking 9/11 CTs. And that's why Harrit is indeed a tosse - it is tåbelig, idiotisk to hope that he would get a platform to defend da twoof

It kind of is. The complain mentions being lumped in with Creationists and Holocaust deniers, which he says is deleterious to his reputation as a serious scientist. It's clear he believes his 9/11 rants are serious science while those other things are not, and so he has been unfairly reduced in the esteem of his peers.

But it only mentions it, and doesn't elaborate.


By the way, I like this bit of the claim:

Weekendavisen ordered to publish the judgment incl. premises in the same place as the ball was brought.

Yes, I do hope they get to publish the judgement - which undoubtedly will be that Harrit may be called a tosse for making idiotisk twoofy claims

 

[Josarhus]

How about "crackpot" or "conspiracy theorist?"



I.e., Washington DC.

Also works fine

 

[Pooneil]

if there is more than one of them: “landsbytosser”

I.e., Washington DC.

Forget the Tea, lets organize the Seasbytossem Party and do it to the whole lot of em.

 

[ozeco41]

Guys we're missing a great opportunity here! We could insult him in two languages simultaneously! "That tosser is so tosser!"

I chose to avoid that excursion into colloquial English usage - "tosser" is in common UK AU usage but I wasn't sure about US.



.... or with Germans who learned as students in the US.

 

[Redwood]

Oh Geebuz H. Kryst, he is a loonie! He really thinks the court will ask the journalists to debunk Harrit's twoofie claims. Hahaha.

Some of the "birthers" here in the USA had a similar strategy. They thought birther Donald Trump should accuse the person in charge of Hawaii's vital records of being a member of a criminal conspiracy, and invite her to sue him for defamation. Presto - DISCOVERY! And the court would have to grant Trump access to all of Obama's personal records so he could defend himself in court.

Great strategy , but for some reason, Trump hasn't gone for it.

 

[ergo]

For example, the defendants may point out that 9/11 conspiracy theorists are widely regarded in the public mind as nut cases and cranks, and that to reflect that characterization in their own writings is not libelous in the sense that it doesn't reduce his esteem in the public mind any more than it already is.

Yeah, that'll work.

They could also point out that since 9/11 conspiracism has no place in mainstream science, except occasionally to refute it, that Harrit's conscious decision to participate it in is what has affected his reputation as a mainstream scientist -- not merely a newspaper's reporting of it. There is a provision in criminal law that says if the plaintiff's actions have warranted the comment, the defendant is not as liable -- tosse is as tosse does.

Criminal law?

None of that would really depend on whether Harrit's claims, or the Truther movement in general, has any legitimate merit. If one publicly engages in behavior that engenders widespread ridicule from the general public (including taking a distinctly minority opinion on a controversial subject), one can't easily single out a lone perpetrator and say that he alone has harmed one's reputation.

Um, yes he can. Where did you study law, JayUtah? I heartily encourage you to volunteer your services to the defendants, lol.