

Stupid Legal Threats: You Can't Write About Me Because of Your Blog's Name - tokenadult
http://www.popehat.com/2013/04/23/today-in-unusually-stupid-legal-threats-you-cant-write-about-me-because-of-your-blogs-name/

======
incision
I certainly don't agree with the way the doc has chosen to handle this, but I
sympathize to a degree. There's no shortage of ignorance about how the
Internet works among otherwise educated people.

Also, the author seems a bit disingenuous.

>The web site in question is Retraction Watch. I recently discussed other
foolish threats made against them, and discussed their mission: offering a
_"window on the scientific process"_ by which scientific articles are
criticized, retracted, or modified."

The full statement is _"Tracking retractions as a window into the scientific
process"_. This is a 2200+ word post, seems unlikely those three words had to
be clipped in the interest of brevity.

>He's acted like an angry blustering oaf who is pathologically intolerant of
criticism. Ask yourself — how much do you trust the work of a scientist who
threatens to sue for true reports of peer review of his work? Would you feel
comfortable ingesting a drug developed by a chemist who threatens criminal
charges against someone who reports — truly and accurately — that other
scientists have raised questions about his conclusions? Would you hire a
consultant who makes foolish public legal threats without first acquiring any
grasp whatsoever of the applicable law? Would you invest in a pharmaceutical
company whose Chief Scientific Officer utters civil and criminal threats
against reports of scientific dissent?

That seems unnecessarily nasty.

~~~
comex
> That seems unnecessarily nasty.

Being unnecessarily nasty to and making fun of people who make misguided legal
threats is par for the course for popehat. It's fun to read, but in my opinion
not really laudable.

------
anigbrowl
Chances are that he's thinking in a civil law mindset, seeing as he's from
Argentina. Some other countries have far stricter laws on defamation than the
US. Indeed, I actually think US laws are a bit too weak, resulting things like
exploitation of mugshots for commercial profit and so on.

~~~
Houshalter
>resulting things like exploitation of mugshots for commercial profit and so
on.

What? I personally think all defamation laws are bs, but regardless, what is
wrong with publishing mugshots?

~~~
anigbrowl
Ask someone who's been arrested in error.

~~~
aidenn0
Okay, I'll bite: can someone who's been arrested in error tell me what's wrong
with publishing mugshots?

~~~
anigbrowl
Suppose you were arrested in error. Would you want your mugshot floating
around the internet forever?

Indeed, suppose you were arrested with cause, but for some minor crime. Same
question.

~~~
btilly
Let's make this a real example.
[http://www.thesmokinggun.com/mugshots/celebrity/business/bil...](http://www.thesmokinggun.com/mugshots/celebrity/business/bill-
gates) shows a mugshot of someone who later became famous. It was taken after
a minor traffic infraction, the details of which are long forgotten.

Over the years this picture has provided many, including me, with repeated
minor amusement. If I featured in a similar mugshot and it afforded someone
else with amusement, well turnabout is fair play.

There is no such mugshot of me, but I would not think it a big deal if there
was. And I doubt that Bill Gates worries himself about the fact that that is
out there.

By contrast if my right to free speech could be shut down just because Bill
Gates does not like that particular picture, then what other speech could he
shut down because he, or some other influential person, disliked it? I
heartily agree that free speech is often abused. But when you open the door to
shutting down speech, there is a short road from there to a loss of democracy.
That would scare me.

Consider this well. The USA is messy, but has been a democracy for hundreds of
years and few are concerned that it is about to become a dictatorship. By
contrast Brazilian democracy is younger than me, and it is by no means certain
that I won't survive long enough to see another military dictatorship there.

~~~
DanBC
Now imagine the mugshot isn't for a minor traffic offence, but is for a rape
or child abuse offence; and that the person photographed was released without
charge and never prosecuted.

That mugshot now becomes a severe problem for you, risking your employment,
and even your life.

------
Zikes
One wonders if Dr. Fernandez is now similarly concerned with his name being
associated with popes and/or hats.

~~~
stretchwithme
Oh, dear. I hope no one thinks he's a hacker now.

------
hmottestad
I guess this is what happens when you get angry and threaten someone who knows
better than to be scared.

I wonder what the author would have done if the initial email had been a
plead, especially if only to make the article say something like "NOT A
RETRACTION" in the title.

If it had been me I would have responded much more kindly to a plead than to a
threat.

~~~
Centigonal
Plea. :)

~~~
hmottestad
nouns and verbs, so much fun. Thanks.

------
lutusp
A quote: "Among the doctrines that defeat Dr. Fernandez' theory are these:
truth is an absolute defense to defamation."

Would that it were so. In the U.S., where these events took place, there is a
legal principle called "false light", in which truthful remarks can still lead
to a judgment against a defendant on the ground that the truths were selected
in such a way as to cast the plaintiff in a false light.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_light>

~~~
chacham15
You are missing a BIG part of that tort: "made with actual malice." You cant
be sued for accidental false light, you have to purposely cast a false light
on facts with malicious intent.

"Truth is always an absolute defense against a defamation suit in the United
States."

-Your favorite source (<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_defamation_law>)

~~~
lutusp
> You cant be sued for accidental false light, you have to purposely cast a
> false light on facts with malicious intent.

It's more accurate to say that the plaintiff has to substantiate malicious
intent in court. Whether there is actual malice is more a matter of philosophy
than law. Since the standard in civil court is preponderance, making that
showing isn't as difficult as it might be in a criminal court.

Then there's the issue of whether the plaintiff is, or can be portrayed as, a
public figure -- that changes everything.

------
lyndonh
The blog post is an ad hominem attack.

I think the researcher mixed up who is connected to what site; but over all he
is right: his paper has not been retracted (yet and possibly won't be).

Should he sue or threaten to sue about it ? Probably not; at least not until
he can show damages.

Threatening the Streisand effect is pure trolling - If you defend yourself
you're guilty ?

------
darxius
Another classic example of the Streisand Effect. If he really wanted something
changed or the fact that it wasn't a retraction more visible, he could of
emailed the owner of the blog and politely asked if there was a compromise
that could be reached.

------
stretchwithme
This is like suing because someone did a profile on you and published it on
Yahoo.

~~~
phaemon
This is like suing because someone did a profile on you and published it on
Rapist Watch.

If that had happened, I doubt there would be many saying, "Well, they never
accused me of being a rapist, so I guess it's OK."

~~~
stretchwithme
It really depends on what is said. Rapist watch can profile people who watch
for rapists too.

------
zowch
Not really the case here because the article specifically calls out what
happened, but it can't really be the case that the name of the blog or site
should play NO role in determining defamation, right?

If I run a blog called "Murderer Watch: Keeping an Eye on Murderers and
Things" and I post "Bob Jones is 34 and lives in Atlanta, GA," that can't be
totally okay just because those are all factual statements, right?

------
freddealmeida
That's OK, he has lawdingo. :-)

