Harrit sues paper for defamation

[NoahFence]

It does give Dr. Harrit the opportunity to defend the legitimacy of his views in court.

MM

 

[Lenbrazil]

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

Cleaned up a bit from the above:

"It is assumed that the reason that the defendant 1 considers the plaintiff a "loonie", because the plaintiff has publicly stated that the three towers that collapsed in Manhattan, New York after the attack on 11 September, 2001, can NOT have collapsed as a result of the two plane crashes into the twin towers - and certainly not in the way that the collapse took place."


Funny how truthers get so fixated on the two plane three collapses 'argument'.

 

[Triterope]

There's a great irony in all this. Harrit takes offense at being compared to people who deny the Holocaust. But in a news article about people who deny the Armenian Genocide, Harrit thinks the greater crime is that someone called him a poor scientist.

 

[Dog Town]

...Harrit thinks the greater crime is that someone called him a poor scientist.

And they was RIGHT! /Blazing Saddles

 

[OCaptain]

It does give Dr. Harrit the opportunity to defend the legitimacy of his views in court.

MM

And I'm sure he'll take them up on that chance!

Not.

 

[leftysergeant]

And I'm sure he'll take them up on that chance!

Not.

Actually, the best thing that could happen, for the media, is that the suit should go forward, Harrit is compelled legally to provide samples of his chips for examination, and somebody actually cooks them in a vaccuum or argon atmosphere.

Are you familiar with the term "hoist on his own petard?"

 

[OCaptain]

Actually, the best thing that could happen, for the media, is that the suit should go forward, Harrit is compelled legally to provide samples of his chips for examination, and somebody actually cooks them in a vaccuum or argon atmosphere.

Are you familiar with the term "hoist on his own petard?"

Yes, and that's why he won't go forward with it.

 

[Lenbrazil]

Actually, the best thing that could happen, for the media, is that the suit should go forward, Harrit is compelled legally to provide samples of his chips for examination, and somebody actually cooks them in a vaccuum or argon atmosphere.

Are you familiar with the term "hoist on his own petard?"

Are you sure that's how it works under Danish law? I many countries in these kinds of cases the burden of proof in on the defendant

 

[DGM]

Are you sure that's how it works under Danish law? I many countries in these kinds of cases the burden of proof in on the defendant

In this case, he would have to show that this persons actions alone were responsible for harm to his reputation. He would need to show his work is valid in order to do this (because this is the basis for the alleged slander) . The onus would be on Harris considering his views go against popular belief.

 

[ergo]

In this case, he would have to show that this persons actions alone were responsible for harm to his reputation.

Unless you're referring to something unique to Danish libel law, no, there is no requirement for this.

He would need to show his work is valid in order to do this (because this is the basis for the alleged slander) . The onus would be on Harris considering his views go against popular belief.

There is no onus on Harrit. The onus is on the journalist to defend his/her comment. To do that, s/he would probably have to show that Harrit's work has been challenged extensively in the scientific community and shown to be invalid. So far it hasn't, so the magazine is in for a ride of their own making. Good on Harrit.

 

[JayUtah]

Are you sure that's how it works under Danish law? I many countries in these kinds of cases the burden of proof in on the defendant

Well no, the plaintiff has the burden of proof. Or in this case, since it's a criminal action, the state has the burden of proof.

One possible defense against defamation is to argue that the claim, while injurious, is true. That's an affirmative defense and shifts the burden of proof to the defendant, but that is not the only possible defense. Further, under Danish law, the truth of the statement is not a defense. My layman's reading of Danish criminal law indicates that a statement is defamatory if intended to be injurious, even if it is true. This differs markedly from the concept of tort in defamation that English Common Law prescribes. Under the law of torts, one is not entitled to a false reputation and cannot be injured by true statements. See what I've written above.

In this case, he would have to show that this persons actions alone were responsible for harm to his reputation. He would need to show his work is valid in order to do this (because this is the basis for the alleged slander).

Yes, if he argues that his reputation and esteem have been damaged, he would have to show facts that substantiate what his reputation is or was. Harrit wants to style himself as a legitimate scientist, albeit retired, who has undertaken (as a serious scientist) to question the official 9/11 story. However, Harrit's belief is not all that's relevant. There is no law against diminishing someone's reputation in his own estimation. The law is only against diminishing a reputation in the estimation of the public. As such he doesn't have the final word on what is reputation is. His reputation is how others perceive him, not how he perceives himself, and that is a finding the court will have to make independently, based on testimony from both sides.

Harrit's belief that he has not been refuted or rebutted is largely irrelevant. The scientific validity of his claims is largely irrelevant. He has chosen to embroil himself in a topic dominated by rhetoric and pseudo-science, and that is the public perception of who he is and what he does. Proving that his handling of the paint chips was sloppy and unscientific would not really help his defense because how the public perceives his work is all that matters. If he were to turn out to be right, but the public universally believed him to be a crackpot up until that point, then that is the reputation he enjoyed at the time the remarks were made.

Forcing Harrit to submit his scientific findings to a less biased and more skilled practitioner for confirmation would be one way perhaps of calling Harrit's bluff. But it may not be a bluff -- i.e., Harrit may be willing to allow others to attempt to replicate his work even if he suspects it may fail. And it has so little legal value. I don't think the defense will follow a strategy of forcing Harrit to prove his science is valid. They only have to prove that Harrit's claim of a high reputation is really what the public has of him, not that of a crank. None of that really has to touch the matter of Harrit's actual work.

 

[Justin39640]

Unless you're referring to something unique to Danish libel law, no, there is no requirement for this.



There is no onus on Harrit. The onus is on the journalist to defend his/her comment. To do that, s/he would probably have to show that Harrit's work has been challenged extensively in the scientific community and shown to be invalid. So far it hasn't, so the magazine is in for a ride of their own making. Good on Harrit.

Just cause you ignore last year's dust study doesn't mean it does not exist...

 

[ergo]

Harrit's belief that he has not been refuted or rebutted is largely irrelevant. The scientific validity of his claims is largely irrelevant.

What precedent do you cite here? Since Harrit is a scientist and not a public figure, his reputation is based on his professional standing in the scientific community. "Public opinion" of his professional reputation cannot be determined by people who cannot assess his professional work.

He has chosen to embroil himself in a topic dominated by rhetoric and pseudo-science, and that is the public perception of who he is and what he does.

For that matter, so has James Millette.

It is not Harrit's fault the the 9/11 debate is confused by pseudoscience coming from both sides. Harrit has merely presented findings of his study of WTC dust. Findings which indeed have not been refuted. That members of the public outside the scientific community don't understand his findings does not constitute a legitimate public opinion. Again, those unable to assess his work will not be the ones determining what his reputation is.

because how the public perceives his work is all that matters.

Again, wrong.

 

[JayUtah]

What precedent do you cite here?

The entirety of tort law, as I wrote above at length.

Since Harrit is a scientist and not a public figure, his reputation is based on his professional standing in the scientific community.

Harrit is a retired scientist who, in retirement, has expressly sought to become a public figure by speaking and writing to the public on his 9/11 conspiracy theories, and to conduct pseudo-scientific activities outside the boundaries and principles of scientific inquiry. It is, in fact, this latter activity by which most of the public knows him. Nobody cared when he was a relatively obscure chemist. It is only after he sought publicity for his conspiracy claims that the public had any knowledge of him. Hence that is the reputation he enjoys in the public.

If he chooses to endanger his reputation in the scientific community by chasing all manner of foolishness, that is his problem. This is why most respectable scientists do not embroil themselves in conspiracy theories, especially on the loony side of them. Again, the age-old underpinnings of defamation law firmly state that one does not have the right to a false reputation. Cherry picking only the rosy parts of Harrit's public image does not create an accurate picture of his reputation.

"Public opinion" of his professional reputation cannot be determined by people who cannot assess his professional work.

His reputation in the community is a combination of all the ways in which he chooses to present himself to the community. If he began his career as a respected scientist and finishes it by persisting in doing something controversial and questionable, he cannot pick and choose which parts of his life he claims were damaged by the actions of another. Danish law expressly allows for the actions of the plaintiff to be taken into account when defamation is alleged.

It is not Harrit's fault the the 9/11 debate is confused by pseudoscience coming from both sides.

It is Harrit's explicit, voluntary choice to involve himself in a controversial subject, on the side of the intellectual minority, and without any endorsement whatsoever (indeed with substantial objection) from the scientific community. The question is not whether Harrit is right or wrong. The question is whether Harrit's reputation has been damaged by someone else.

You don't get to wallow in manure and then complain when someone else points out the smell, no matter how clean you were before wallowing.

 

[beachnut]

What precedent do you cite here? Since Harrit is a scientist and not a public figure, his reputation is based on his professional standing in the scientific community. "Public opinion" of his professional reputation cannot be determined by people who cannot assess his professional work.

You are in the subset of people who can't assess Harrit's work, fooled by Harrit's work. Like your moon size debris physics, some are not able to see Harrit is spreading lies about 911.

It is not Harrit's fault the the 9/11 debate is confused by pseudoscience coming from both sides.

911 truth is the the only side using pseudoscience, and they have fooled those who forgot to take the hard courses, like chemistry and physics. Like your moon size debris physics, pseudoscience mixed with nonsense.

Harrit has merely presented findings of his study of WTC dust.

Findings which show no thermite. Understanding chemistry and science would help seeing the paper is nonsense.

Findings which indeed have not been refuted.

No need to refute lies the entire world of science can see as lies. Feel free to prove the results and claims of Harrit, he has crazy claims about 911. How much thermite did they say was used? lol

That members of the public outside the scientific community don't understand his findings does not constitute a legitimate public opinion.

Why are the findings ignored? In fact you can't list his findings. Too bad he can't sue to have his findings become real. Maybe he needs to pray, or have Jones pray for their work to become real.

Again, those unable to assess his work will not be the ones determining what his reputation is.

He is a crazy nut on 911 issues. A paranoid conspiracy theorists who apologizes for terrorists by making false statements.

Again, wrong.

Harrit is wrong on 911, so are you. Failure is the only product of 911 truth, and profit for Gage due to the gullibility of a fringe few.

There is a chance Harrit can sue people calling him crazy in the news, and he can win. Zero chance his paper and his 911 claims will be more than fantasy for those who can't do science. Why can't you figure out Harrit is wrong?

911 truth followers can improve their position with education, when will they take that critical thinking step?

 

[Oystein]

He has chosen to embroil himself in a topic dominated by rhetoric and pseudo-science, and that is the public perception of who he is and what he does.

For that matter, so has James Millette.

Can you substantiate that claim? Where, when and how has Jim Millette chosen to embroil himself in a topic dominated by rhetoric and pseudo-science?

Does he engage in rhetoric like Harrit does? Does he engage in pseudo-science like Harrit does? Does he seek public attention, e.g. by seeking to be interviewed on TV, radio or YouTube about 9/11 like Harrit does?
One (sourced) example for each of the three activities would suffice as prima facie evidence of your claim.

Alternatively, you could retract it.

 

[ergo]

JayUtah, in the same way that a few morons with megaphones do not constitute public opinion, one's personal and unprofessional opinion as to science vs. pseudoscience in 9/11 inquiry does not constitute valid legal analysis.

Yes, the issue at hand is whether Harrit's reputation has been harmed by the comments. Integral to determining this will be questioning the notion that 9/11 inquiry of any kind is "questionable". I've seen no scientific opinion as yet that suggests it is, or that Harrit's research is unscientific. Public opinion (which is not a homogenous entity to begin with) is of no consequence here. It's not the business of a court of law to assess public opinion on such matters in the first place, and secondly, to enlist it in determining the validity of libelous comments.

 

[brazenlilraisin]

ergo, is there such a thing as an expert in any subject who doesn't believe as you do?

 

[Oystein]

Can you substantiate that claim? Where, when and how has Jim Millette chosen to embroil himself in a topic dominated by rhetoric and pseudo-science?

Does he engage in rhetoric like Harrit does? Does he engage in pseudo-science like Harrit does? Does he seek public attention, e.g. by seeking to be interviewed on TV, radio or YouTube about 9/11 like Harrit does?
One (sourced) example for each of the three activities would suffice as prima facie evidence of your claim.

Alternatively, you could retract it.

Hehe thanks, ergo, for not replying. We understand it means you have been caught with your pants down, and know it.

 

[ergo]

Oystein, I have nothing to retract.