Dawkins sued for libel

[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.

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...???

Why don't you start with the irrationality of baldly misquoting someone. I said that "much of Seth's post [was] right on the mark". But apparently you had an agenda to fill, namely smearing anybody who might have a difference of opinion, and misread me, taking what suited your biases and leaving the rest, and falsely accusing me of something you have no evidence of -- since I didn't indicate which parts of Seth's post I agreed with, you have no knowledge of whether I did or did not lack evidence. It is this type of arrogant, biased and, in this instance, slanderous crap which likely has landed you in hot water. Given your inability to properly interpret even one single sentence, likely on account of it being perceived as against you, why should I hesitate to turn on strong skepticism in my analysis of anything you say?

[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...???

Why don't you start with the irrationality of baldly misquoting someone. I said that "much of Seth's post [was] right on the mark". But apparently you had an agenda to fill, namely smearing anybody who might have a difference of opinion, and misread me, taking what suited your biases and leaving the rest, and falsely accusing me of something you have no evidence of -- since I didn't indicate which parts of Seth's post I agreed with, you have no knowledge of whether I did or did not lack evidence.

Irony, not a strong point in the Americas.

You will note that I put some question marks on the end of my comment. This, in Britain, has the remarkable effect of turning the comment into a question and phrased in these circumstances so that you had the opportunity of clarifying which parts of Seth's post you found were "right on the mark".

Perhaps I should also have pointed out that you previously said: "I must confess not to having read all the dreary drama preceding and ongoing"

I appreciate the honesty. Still, you haven't read much about the issue but find, in part, the comments by Seth to be "right on the mark". And what logical route was used to get there considering that the issues I have presented so far do not contain all of the facts? You admittedly find favour with someone's comments having only read part of the issue, an issue which contains the most basic of facts as stated. And you say I am wrong to make an assumption about the evidence you use?

Again, my presence here is to dispel much of the incoherent arguments put forward by people not in possession of the facts. It seems I now need to also make allowances for people who can't even be bothered to read all of the case too.

I haven't smeared anybody either; I'm simply making the comment that people are jumping to conclusions without knowledge of the facts.

It is this type of arrogant, biased and, in this instance, slanderous crap which likely has landed you in hot water. Given your inability to properly interpret even one single sentence, likely on account of it being perceived as against you, why should I hesitate to turn on strong skepticism in my analysis of anything you say?

Slanderous? Interesting choice of word.

Oh, and you still have no idea why I am in, as you put, "hot water". You have demonstrated once again that you are not entitled to hold an opinion on the matter based on your own imagination. I did interpret your sentence correctly, you just missed the question mark. I wasn't quoting you directly... if I was then you might have a point. It's more the case that you recognise that you are unable to substantiate why you believe Seth was correct (partially or otherwise) and that you simply retreat to a position which demonstrates a fundamental lack of knowledge of defamation law.

[lordpasternack]

Oh man - is this going to turn into a pedantic shitfest about who isn't in a position to hold what opinions about whom, rather than a discussion at least shedding some light on a laughable looking, if trivial libel suit, that's coming up?

This isn't directed so much at you, John - mainly the provocative/defensive voices that entered and seem happy with going along that route.

[Svartalf]

If I'm included in your reproaches, may I ask what fault you found in my attitude?

[vjohn82]

Oh man - is this going to turn into a pedantic shitfest about who isn't in a position to hold what opinions about whom, rather than a discussion at least shedding some light on a laughable looking, if trivial libel suit, that's coming up?

This isn't directed at you, John - mainly the provocative/defensive voices that entered and seem intent on going along that route.

I agree with you entirely. My presence here was questioned; my honest intention, as I have stated, is to prevent the spread of false information after noticing this site accessing my blog. I mean posters everywhere have already questioned whether it was Richard Dawkins being used for writing libellous words which I feel I have a duty to correct because, the truth is, the words complained of were mine and mine alone.

The content of those words cannot be divulged both in keeping with the conventions of the court and because I suspect the publisher of this site needs reassurances that the words were never libellous in the first place. A court ruling in my favour should ease these concerns. But no need to jump the gun.

All I can say, and which I will maintain, is that I wrote a review of free chapters made available by an author. I stated that it wasn't worth buying and questioned the ethics of him writing fake reviews (which he now admits to) and there many comments made backwards and forwards by several people. I was threatened with libel proceedings and wrote an article about it because I felt it was ridiculous. Then 8 months later I receive the court paperwork. Despite my words being complained about, I am way down in the Defendant's list. People can draw their own conclusions from that alone I think?

I could have stayed silent and people would be none the wiser about my role in this. But I think I have demonstrated that I am a reasonable person and completely comfortable with everything I have written. I do not expect people to agree or disagree at this stage because the facts are quite scarce.

If everyone wants the Claimant's view on this they may consult his legal notice here: http://www.mcgproductionsltd.com/Legal.html

However, the Ministry of Truth blog has written about the case here: http://www.ministryoftruth.me.uk/2011/0 ... a-scrooby/

and was threatened with court proceedings and told to remove information by the same person suing me here: http://www.ministryoftruth.me.uk/2011/0 ... nastygram/

Protection of reputation or an attempt to stifle debate and free speech???

[apophenia]

Well, your chiseling attempt to evade responsibility for you error aside -- an effort which brings to mind Seth's favorite word, "pettifoggery" -- as that is all it was, mere lawyering tricks. That aside, I'd like to ask you why you feel it ethical to try your case in the court of public opinion, here and elsewhere, where the jury is stacked with peers favourable to your cause (feel free to provide links to your efforts, say, at theologyweb.com or similar to clarify the make-up of the jury pool), and where you likely will find no representatives of the opposing view -- and those that are, like me, likely have poor reputation and many enemies.

Please provide your ethical justification and links to, or the names of, the other venues on the internet in which you are pleading your case.

While I understand that it might be a tactically sound judgement to do so, I find that, personally, to be an insufficient rationale. Are you that in danger of losing that you must engage in frantic efforts at spin-doctoring? Hell, even the average street punk knows, when accused, to shut up and wait for their lawyer. But you choose a different course, why?

I'm tempted to simply scream pettifoggery over and over, because, in a word, I think you're full of it.

And your actions, I think, back up my contention.

I rather suspect this cretin suing you is a mere opportunist, but you do yourself no favors climbing into the pen and grappling in the mud with him.

No, you've not only tarnished your reputation, in my eyes, but by association those like, I presume, Dawkins, who you think you are helping.

[lordpasternack]

No, Svarty, I wasn't having a go at you.

Is apophenia Seth's sockpuppet?

[lordpasternack]

Apophenia - I don't think this is about the man winning or losing his case, or for politics, or even to win favour, that he's here. He has cleared up some basic straightforward misapprehensions about the case - such as that it's about his words and his words only. That's all.

[vjohn82]

I'm always surprised that when I ask a reasonable question of a person they respond with about 3 or 4 of their own.

The ethical argument has a place in this discussion.

The fact of the matter is that I have been taken to court by an author unhappy with my review, comments and Atheism. A cursory examination of the Claimant's legal notice and blog will reveal this to be the case.

Furthermore, all of my writings consider the real fact that it is the freedom of expression for all persons in the UK which is under threat should the Claimant win his case. That's quite a burden on me don't you think? So why not rally people around a cause which affects pretty much everyone who writes in a blog/forum/comments section?

There is no spin doctoring. I can say this with complete honesty because I would look rather silly should the full details ever be released. Sure, I could just be a chancer hoping to pull the wool over people's eyes. How could I prove this not the be the case? All I have asked is that people approach the subject rationally and logically.

Who stands to gain more from these libel proceedings?

Me, an individual with a family who writes in his spare time for no monetary gain?

Or an individual with a motive for opportunism (which has been noted by everyone else who has examined the case WITHOUT my input)?

Judging by the breadth of your posts, I would consider it a personal insult to have gained your respect anyway; especially considering that you are ready to jump to conclusions without any evidence and have demonstrated a lack of parliamentary procedure in asking me questions in response to my question to you. If you feel you deserve answers, perhaps you should ask yourself whether the person you are conversing with deserves an answer to theirs first?

[vjohn82]

Apophenia - I don't think this is about the man winning or losing his case, or for politics, or even to win favour, that he's here. He has cleared up some basic straightforward misapprehensions about the case - such as that it's about his words and his words only. That's all.

Absolutely. I've been upfront about my intentions. There is no agenda. But the scale, and cost to ordinary bloggers/commentators, should not be underplayed. This case is a clear attack on the right to publish information other people disagree with.

As long as you can prove what you write, there should be a clear public interest in revealing that information. Ordinary people should not be subject to libel laws designed to restrict freedom of speech; companies have a different responsibility. This case, were I in receipt of formal legal support, would have cost me over £30,000 by now I suspect and were it go to a full trial I could be looking at £100,000+.

[apophenia]

I would consider it a personal insult to have gained your respect anyway

Thanks, I already have enough friends anyway. That you think I should respect you when you toss off gratuitous insults like this is laughable. You couldn't gain my respect if you tried. You simply couldn't. I have my standards, and you, apparently, have yours.

Nice chatting with you. Au revoir.

[lordpasternack]

That you think I should respect you when you toss off gratuitous insults like this is laughable.

He just made it clear, in the very words that you are responding to, that he neither expects nor seeks your respect. Just saying…

[Seth]

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.

Hasn't escaped me at all. When one lives and posts in a country with "favourable" libel laws, one must perforce carefully moderate one's speech if one hopes not to be brought up on charges, or had that point escaped you?

The thing about libel laws is that the "full context" is not the metric by which libel is or is not judged. If you made a claim as a statement of fact about an individual and that statement is false and derogatory, then in most places you've violated the libel laws. The UK's metric is quite a bit more broad in its protection of reputation and business, which is something you should have known before you wrote your "review." I don't know whether you have violated the libel laws of the UK or not, but it's perfectly evident that what you wrote was disparaging enough and (at least to the plaintiff) false enough and harmful enough for him to invest some money in suing you. That's his right, if he believes you have harmed him and violated the law.

Your blog clearly demonstrates the antipathy you have towards this person and religionists in general, and I'm familiar with the sort of antipathy that many Atheists have, and how loudly they voice it, against people of faith, and how often those disparaging comments could very well transgress the laws of libel. Most Atheist pundits get away with it because most people of faith have neither the money nor the interest in pursuing expensive litigation and they would have a difficult time proving economic damages. But when you "reviewed" this fellow's book, and outed his ad campaign, and outed his children and generally went far beyond merely reviewing and criticizing the book, you very likely crossed the line into libel, at least in the UK, and he has the money to make an issue of it.

As I said, I don't know the facts of the case other than the ones you have provided in your blog, so I'm not prepared to argue the merits of anything other than your outing of his children's names and school, which was a reprehensible and cowardly and entirely unnecessary act, and the sort of thing that anti-religious zealots who would be perfectly satisfied to see he and his children harassed or physically harmed by other Atheists would do. As I said, I have personal experience with that sort of mentally deranged Internet Netwit, and it's not a pleasant experience at all, and can be physically dangerous, particularly when personal details are "outed" on the Internet for anyone who is mentally unstable to find and potentially used. For that reason I'm not at all surprised he's suing you. I would too, if I didn't first track you down (or better yet hire some thugs to do it for me) and break both your legs and all your fingers first for placing my children in danger. Oh, wait, that would be a deranged thing to do, wouldn't it? It's perhaps worth remembering that there are deranged people on BOTH SIDES of the question, and YOU might well become a target for some religious zealot who sees you as a clear and present danger to children of the faithful and decides to do unto you as you have done unto others, only worse.

Ponder on that for a while as you ride your high horse of indignation at criticism from me for a reprehensible act of cowardice involving a man's children.

And that criticism is based on what YOU WROTE in your blog and nothing else. If you didn't intend to admit that you outed the man's children and their school, that's your problem. But you did, and now you can rightfully be criticized for doing so.

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...

How conveeeeenient for you. Well, time will tell and eventually a court or jury will decide whether you went further than you should have. In re those claims, my only suggestion is that you learn the libel laws and moderate your writing to conform to and remain safely within the libel laws if you don't want to get sued. It's really not that hard to do, all you have to do is suppress the urge to attack the author and/or his family personally and satisfy yourself with critiquing the work in a rational and adult manner. Atheist zealotry however has gotten more than a few people in trouble because they let their emotions run away with them and they let their mindless hatred and bigotry of religionists slip the leash, and it happens that the faithful are beginning to take umbrage at it and are exercising their rights under the law to seek redress for harm done by overzealous Atheists.

[Seth]

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.

Go read his blog, that's where I got all my information.

[Seth]

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.

Hm, very pot, kettle, black there. You didn't appear to give much of a flying fuck about HIS reputation, now did you? And why would he be obligated to tell your side of the story, any more than you're obligated to tell his?

It's a bit odd though, since pretty much everyone except me is probably automatically on your side, so you're likely preaching to the choir. Shouldn't you be defending yourself on the religious forums?