• 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

As predicted, the decision is written off as a politically-motivated miscarriage of justice. Thanks to all who have worked to uncover and clarify what really happened in the courtrooms.

I think the opinion -- as much of it as we have available today in English -- draws a helpful distinction between objectivity and subjectivity. Reading between the lines of the uncertain translation, it seems that the judges say it's okay for Harrit to have one subjective opinion of his claims and for others (specifically Villemoes) legitimately to have a different one. It seems to validate the prerogative to base opinions and criticism on any of a variety of possible factors.
 
I was just reading some of the comments on Neils Harrit's facebook page.

Thought I would share, if you like a giggle

Ian Haddock There was a similar case in the UK when a guy wouldn't pay his BBC TV license under the grounds the BBC were terrorists for stating the building 7 had demolished earlier than it had. He had won his case this Month - So in effect this is justification for a retrial. This has to count towards it. They cannot let one person win and another loose over the same issue. If the idiots think we will now back down they are mistaken. The decision today only makes us stronger and our will even more resilient.
1 · 1 hr · Edited

Rodney Peligarden Yes...I saw that. I believe that BBC reported the collapse of the tower a full 20 minutes prior to the actual collapse. Just more proof of a conspiracy.
1 · 1 hr

Ian Haddock Thank you Rodney. The guy in the UK won the case so these Judges who made this decision on Niels Harrit are wrong and corrupt. In fact what I propose is that every reporter and generalist that doesn't believe 911 was an inside job - We call them crack pots instead. We call them all the names we can think of and lets see them try to take us to court. There is also a video on you tube clearly showing the sound of detonations before each collapse.
Click to expand...
 
slowsmile said:
Ah - being found guilty, fined £75 and ordered to pay £320 costs was a great "win" for Matt Campbell.

http://thecontrail.com/forum/topics...44723:Comment:631980&x=1#4744723Comment631980

I do like how truthers also think decisions in a British Magistrates Court can somehow create a legal precedent.
Click to expand...

There's also the earlier case in which Tony Rooke was found guilty of using an unlicensed TV set, given a six month conditional discharge (basically, the defendant is found guilty but is not punished provided he doesn't repeat the offence) and ordered to pay £200 costs. This was also reported as a victory by truthers, who didn't seem to understand the difference between this and a Not Guilty verdict. Again, celebrating failure.

Dave
 
Dave Rogers said:
There's also the earlier case in which Tony Rooke was found guilty of using an unlicensed TV set, given a six month conditional discharge (basically, the defendant is found guilty but is not punished provided he doesn't repeat the offence) and ordered to pay £200 costs. This was also reported as a victory by truthers, who didn't seem to understand the difference between this and a Not Guilty verdict. Again, celebrating failure.

Dave
Click to expand...

Yes - I thought it was the Rooke case they were referring to at first - not seen any report of the Campbell case yet spinning it as a win - although I'm sure it can only be a matter of time................
 
I for one am relieved to see Harrit lose. I've taken a lot of flack from my buddies on the forum for being a free-speech hawk (journalists are like that). To see the whole 9/11 Truth movement try to get behind Niels Harrit's libel case is worse than pathetic. It's dangerous for them. They always complain about being censored, shouted down, marginalized, etc. And they're right. I have always been the voice that screams, "I disagree with what you say but will defend your right to say it." I have never gone to the mods to report a violation on JREF or here.
I will not cease being the free-speech hawk I have always been, but what baldfaced hypocrisy for 9/11 Truth to scream "censorship!" and then sue a reporter for expressing a very negative opinion! The next time I feel called to take up the cause of free speech for the Harrit crowd, I'm not sure I'll be able to get it up to come to their defense.
 
The University of Copenhagen's "University Post" has a new article on Harrit's loss, again written by Mike Young:

Copenhagen 9/11 court case: ´Crackpot´ is NOT libel

Unsurprisingly, Harrit said something slightly over the top to a question from the reporter:
University Post said:
Niels Harrit ... adds that it is an important verdict, as it means that "the Danish criminal code is now obsolete, and anyone can say anything about anybody. And this is destructive of the debate".
Click to expand...
The article goes on:
Questioned by the University Post as to his court costs, Niels Harrit explains that all his costs are covered by a collection from the group Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth.
Click to expand...
Money ill spent.
 
Too funny!

"It is hereby confirmed in two court hearings, that you may call Niels Harrit a crackpot [tosse, ed.]. This is not crackpot-ty [tosset, ed.]", Søren K. Villemoes.
 
Playing Games said:
Too funny!

"It is hereby confirmed in two court hearings, that you may call Niels Harrit a crackpot [tosse, ed.]. This is not crackpot-ty [tosset, ed.]", Søren K. Villemoes.
Click to expand...
Reading through the comments section is equally hilarious :)
 
Oystein said:
Via an AE911T newsletter, Harrit has issued a "Statement in Response to the
Danish High Court’s Decision on March 27, 2015"

Given that he dated it April 1st, I think we may safely call this an "April's Tosser" prank.
Click to expand...

It can be easily argued that this ruling did not conform to the court’s rulings in similar cases. In my case, the court ignored the complete absence of a factual basis for the libelous words the newspaper had published. All previous libel cases have been decided on the absence or the presence of proof. In this case, there was no proof.
Click to expand...

But this case was special, Harrit chose to ignore the court case and ramble on about Wtc7. He claimed to have a Danish lawyer spend 20 to 30 hours helping him prepare his case :confused:
 
Spanx said:
But this case was special, Harrit chose to ignore the court case and ramble on about Wtc7. He claimed to have a Danish lawyer spend 20 to 30 hours helping him prepare his case :confused:
Click to expand...

That lawyer must be reading the AE911Truth articles about how wonderful it was to raise 15,000 bucks, and he must be laughing a very hearty laugh and be in excellent spirits as he takes his mistress out to a fancy dinner with the fat pockets that the gullible stuffed :D

And oh those donating truthies must be thrilled when they realize their money went to the other side, too :cool:
 
AE and many truthers are basically narcissist looking for attention and in some cases an income (Gage) and their 15 minutes of fame.

These people delude themselves into thinking they are seeking the "truth" and serving some higher noble cause.

Pathetic
 
Spanx said:
But this case was special, Harrit chose to ignore the court case and ramble on about Wtc7.
Click to expand...

As he planned. He wanted to get all that WTC 7 evidence on record in a court.

But reading the snippit of the decision that was posted here, it's obvious the judges were thinking several levels higher than Harrit. The overriding question was reputation versus free speech. Free speech is fundamentally the freedom of thought. And Harrit was trying to use the courts to compel others to have as favorable opinion of him as he has of himself.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom