Dawkins sued for libel

[lordpasternack]

Sorry that should have been $300, 000…

[borealis]

But yeah… history… this very forum is a 'grandchild' of the old RD.net forum - a breakaway from an initial breakaway forum - The Judean People's Front.

Splitters!

[Seth]

So why is he suing Dawkins? Did Dawkins call him twat or something?

One of the defendants outlined the libel case here. To me, it looks like the plaintiff is using his action as a vehicle to promote his own publication, which is titled something like The Murder of God.

"The Attempted Murder of God: Hidden Science You Really Need To Know" specifically...

Still a shite book from the chapters I have read. It is claimed to be a "parody with satirical intent".

Feel free to read the free chapters of it available here... http://www.mcgproductionsltd.co.uk/Authors.html

Be careful what you write, you might end up joining me, Amazon and Dawkins in defending a ridiculous libel claim

Indeed. It's always a good idea to keep in mind the fact that free speech isn't really free, and you can't say just anything you like about someone, which is why innuendo exists. Your mistake appears to have been one of making positive assertions about an individual and his character that were actually just your opinion on the matter, and not fact.

But, time will tell and the courts will rule.

It's also a good idea to conceal your identity more carefully if you are going to hurl libelous claims about. Either that or just mind your own business.

[vjohn82]

Seth: you can say this because it's your right but that doesn't mean you're right.

The mistake you have made is that you know nothing of the case to be able to make a reasonable comment on the matter.

It's a good idea not to say anything if you're going to hurl silly claims about. Either that or just mind your own business.

[Svartalf]

mmmh, vjohn? Ignorance of the case may be a fact, since we are not the litigants, nor do we have access to the involved barristers.
But do you think we should trust somebody who is (or poses as) somebody with personal involvement in the matter, and therefore a partisan outlook, especially since he seems to have joined the forums for the sole purpose of discussing his side of the matter?

[lordpasternack]

vjohn82 - Seth is one of our in-house provocateurs. He believes in stirring up debate, deliberately pushing people's buttons, and being rhetorical to the point of getting fully into character for arguing points-of-view he doesn't actually hold. Don't take him entirely seriously.

[Seth]

Seth: you can say this because it's your right but that doesn't mean you're right.

The mistake you have made is that you know nothing of the case to be able to make a reasonable comment on the matter.

I read your blog posts. It seems pretty clear that you have a serious personal antipathy towards McG and his writings and you went beyond the bounds of civil law in "reviewing" the content of the book, making it into a personal attack. It doesn't sound like a review (although it's hard to tell since you don't post the content of the "review" that got you in trouble on your blog), which is permissible opinion and commentary. It appears instead that you went to great pains to ferret-out and published personal information, particularly about his children which has nothing whatever to do with the content of the book or a neutral "review" of it.

I've seen such tactics many times before, including "outing" attacks of personal information about me both at RatSkep and elsewhere that, while facially not a direct threat were clearly posted with the intent that someone else use the information to do direct, physical harm to me that, like your situation, resulted in police reports, but unlike your situation, resulted in things like restraining orders against the harassers. That sort of ad hominem behavior is skating on the razor's edge of incitement and criminal harassment, even here in the US, from which it's easy to get cut with your own weapon, as you are discovering. That's why avoiding personal comments is usually a good idea, and it's one reason why "personal attacks" are proscribed here, and at RDF, and at RatSkep and many other forums.

You had absolutely no legitimate reason to mention his children, their names, or their school AT ALL, under ANY circumstances, notwithstanding your lame excuses and protestations that you'd feel equally sorry for any child raised in a religious home. It was the essence of an ad hominem attack, and worse because it was not directed at McG directly, but at him through his children, which is always a reprehensible, despicable , and disgusting act of cowardice. I don't blame him for suing you on that count because your self-admitted behavior, in my opinion, meets the standard for the tort claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress and would likely meet the standard for criminal harassment by computer here in Colorado.

As for the rest, I merely said that being cognizant of the libel laws in your nation is always a good idea because they are substantially broader than they are in the US, and that it appears facially that you may have indeed violated them. Time will tell, and the truth will come out in court and you will either be vindicated or convicted by your own words.

That's the risk that everyone takes when they step outside of reasoned debate and opinion and make their dislike for someone's work personal. It's worth noting this because too many people think that the Internet is a libel free-for-all and one can say absolutely anything without risking repercussions.

You have discovered to your dismay that this is not the case, which makes your situation a cautionary tale for others, whether you are being justly or unjustly sued.

It's a good idea not to say anything if you're going to hurl silly claims about. Either that or just mind your own business.

Er, the instant that YOU put your situation on the Internet for public review, it became "my business" if I choose to comment upon it, or had that simple fact escaped you?

I don't know whether you're wrong or right in most of your claims, but I do believe that your ad hominem attack on his kids, which you've admitted, is reprehensible under ANY circumstances, and is beyond the pale. For that you deserve to be held accountable.

For the rest, time will tell.

Ever consider emigrating to the US, where the libel laws are far narrower?

[vjohn82]

mmmh, vjohn? Ignorance of the case may be a fact, since we are not the litigants, nor do we have access to the involved barristers.
But do you think we should trust somebody who is (or poses as) somebody with personal involvement in the matter, and therefore a partisan outlook, especially since he seems to have joined the forums for the sole purpose of discussing his side of the matter?

I'm not asking anyone to trust me... but seeing as the Claimant has written some very one sided accounts of the matter it's necessary, for my own reputation, to be able to answer any allegations.

[vjohn82]

Seth: you can say this because it's your right but that doesn't mean you're right.

The mistake you have made is that you know nothing of the case to be able to make a reasonable comment on the matter.

I read your blog posts. It seems pretty clear that you have a serious personal antipathy towards McG and his writings and you went beyond the bounds of civil law in "reviewing" the content of the book, making it into a personal attack. It doesn't sound like a review (although it's hard to tell since you don't post the content of the "review" that got you in trouble on your blog), which is permissible opinion and commentary. It appears instead that you went to great pains to ferret-out and published personal information, particularly about his children which has nothing whatever to do with the content of the book or a neutral "review" of it.

I've seen such tactics many times before, including "outing" attacks of personal information about me both at RatSkep and elsewhere that, while facially not a direct threat were clearly posted with the intent that someone else use the information to do direct, physical harm to me that, like your situation, resulted in police reports, but unlike your situation, resulted in things like restraining orders against the harassers. That sort of ad hominem behavior is skating on the razor's edge of incitement and criminal harassment, even here in the US, from which it's easy to get cut with your own weapon, as you are discovering. That's why avoiding personal comments is usually a good idea, and it's one reason why "personal attacks" are proscribed here, and at RDF, and at RatSkep and many other forums.

You had absolutely no legitimate reason to mention his children, their names, or their school AT ALL, under ANY circumstances, notwithstanding your lame excuses and protestations that you'd feel equally sorry for any child raised in a religious home. It was the essence of an ad hominem attack, and worse because it was not directed at McG directly, but at him through his children, which is always a reprehensible, despicable , and disgusting act of cowardice. I don't blame him for suing you on that count because your self-admitted behavior, in my opinion, meets the standard for the tort claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress and would likely meet the standard for criminal harassment by computer here in Colorado.

As for the rest, I merely said that being cognizant of the libel laws in your nation is always a good idea because they are substantially broader than they are in the US, and that it appears facially that you may have indeed violated them. Time will tell, and the truth will come out in court and you will either be vindicated or convicted by your own words.

That's the risk that everyone takes when they step outside of reasoned debate and opinion and make their dislike for someone's work personal. It's worth noting this because too many people think that the Internet is a libel free-for-all and one can say absolutely anything without risking repercussions.

You have discovered to your dismay that this is not the case, which makes your situation a cautionary tale for others, whether you are being justly or unjustly sued.

It's a good idea not to say anything if you're going to hurl silly claims about. Either that or just mind your own business.

Er, the instant that YOU put your situation on the Internet for public review, it became "my business" if I choose to comment upon it, or had that simple fact escaped you?

I don't know whether you're wrong or right in most of your claims, but I do believe that your ad hominem attack on his kids, which you've admitted, is reprehensible under ANY circumstances, and is beyond the pale. For that you deserve to be held accountable.

For the rest, time will tell.

Ever consider emigrating to the US, where the libel laws are far narrower?

Wow, nice gish gallop

I hate to say it but it doesn't appear that you have read the blogs or anything of note properly.

[Svartalf]

OK, a guy who starts putting Seth down after less than ten posts can't be all bad.

[vjohn82]

OK, a guy who starts putting Seth down after less than ten posts can't be all bad.

It just seems to have escaped Seth that maybe, just maybe, someone is using the very favourable libel laws to take advantage of someone whose words were innocuous in their full context.

For example:

I had to read Mein Kampf for my undergraduate studies and I cannot say that it was enjoyable to read.

Quote mine...

I read... Mein Kampf... and... it was enjoyable to read.

Let's put it this way, this is pretty much what the Claimant has done and accuses me of being a Mein Kampf fantasist because of it. That's all I can say on the matter at this time... the rest is evidence and I can't disseminate it. Wish I could...

[Schneibster]

Dawkins being sued for libel.

Guy sounds like a professional suer.

Dude's a crank. I hope the British legal system doesn't encourage cranks.

[apophenia]

*shrug* I must confess not to having read all the dreary drama preceding and ongoing, but I found much of Seth's post right on the mark. That being said, from what I understand, even residing in the U.S. would not shield you adequately from a libel suit originating in the U.K., but again, this is a prima facie impression. I have not, nor intend to, familiarize myself with the case nor the relevant law.

But I'm more than happy to watch you rotters sit 'n spin.

[vjohn82]

*shrug* I must confess not to having read all the dreary drama preceding and ongoing, but I found much of Seth's post right on the mark. That being said, from what I understand, even residing in the U.S. would not shield you adequately from a libel suit originating in the U.K., but again, this is a prima facie impression. I have not, nor intend to, familiarize myself with the case nor the relevant law.

But I'm more than happy to watch you rotters sit 'n spin.

It surprises me how much of a lack of rationality there really is out there. So Seth's post was right on the mark because...???

I mean, you have no facts to deduce whether he was right in his assertions. You have no evidence to contend with. All you have is the allegations made against me.

In Britain, you are innocent until proven guilty. The Claimant has already demonstrated the willingness to artificially produce meanings based on his current legal disclaimer on his website (arguments of criminality for example which, following my conversation with the Police and even posting my reference number on my blog to prove it, say that there is, in fact, no criminal case to answer to).

That might give someone an idea about the guy's credibility and start alarm bells ringing... no?

But this is precisely the reason I join the groups that start discussing the topic; to dispel speculation and leaps in argument without the facts to hand.

[Schneibster]

It appears instead that you went to great pains to ferret-out and published personal information, particularly about his children which has nothing whatever to do with the content of the book or a neutral "review" of it.

Seth, I'd believe this quicker if you provided some evidence. Unfortunately your character is such that I will not believe it without.