I believe in wide open speech and the rough and tumble of public debate, particularly about important political or social controversies and public persons–me included. That doesn’t mean, of course, that I believe in libel. Intentionally making false claims about a person that exposes him or her to contempt and ridicule can and should be a civil wrong. Thus, for example, if I accused my neighbor–a retired parole officer– of robbing a bank, I could properly be sued.
In the USA, the 1st Amendment makes it extremely difficult for a public figure to sue successfully for libel, since in New York Times v Sullivan, the Supreme Court ruled that the aggrieved party has to show “malice,” that is knowledge or reckless disregard of the statement’s falsehood. This results in unfairness to some people, but the benefit is a robust marketplace of ideas.
Other nations are not nearly as enamored of free speech as is America. Canada, for example, restricts speech in significant ways that would never (I hope) be accepted in the USA. Perhaps that is why Andrew Weaver, a leading Canadian climate scientist, is suing the National Post for libel based on its articles that the scientist believes defamed him, which from what I read in the following article, would seem to have little chance of success here. From the story:
One of the world’s leading climate scientists has launched a libel lawsuit against a Canadian newspaper for publishing articles that he says “poison” the debate on global warming. In a case with potentially huge consequences for online publishers, lawyers acting for Andrew Weaver, a climate modeller at the University of Victoria, Canada, have demanded the National Post removes the articles not only from its own websites, but also from the numerous blogs and sites where they were reposted.
Weaver says the articles, published at the height of several recent controversies over the reliability of climate science in recent months, contain “grossly irresponsible falsehoods”. He said he filed the suit after the newspaper refused to retract the articles. Weaver said: “If I sit back and do nothing to clear my name, these libels will stay on the internet forever. They’ll poison the factual record, misleading people who are looking for reliable scientific information about global warming.”
Wait a minute. Publishing falsehoods or misleading people about a public policy issue isn’t–or at least, in my view–shouldn’t be–libel. However, if Weaver was accused, for example, of professional malfeasance or misfeasance–say, of making up research or plagarism–assuming it is false, that could be libel. Thus, this charge might be libel, if proved:
The four articles, published from December to February, claimed that Weaver cherry picked data to support his climate research, and that he tried to blame the “evil fossil fuel” industry for break-ins at his office in 2008 to divert attention from reported mistakes in the 2007 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, on which he was lead author.
But then again, it might just be the expression of an opinion–which doesn’t necessarily inoculate one from the charge of libel, but which is different than making a false assertion of a purported fact. It can get complicated–at least in the USA.
I don’t know if any of the articles in question made any such explicit accusations against Weaver, but this part of the story is what got my attention:
The lawsuit also highlights several claims in the articles that attempt to question or undermine the scientific consensus on climate change, including that annual global mean temperatures have stopped increasing in the last decade and that climate models are “falling apart”. Such statements, the lawsuit says, would lead readers to conclude that Weaver “is so strongly motivated by a corrupt interest in receiving government funding that he willfully conceals scientific climate data which refutes global warming in order to keep alarming the public so that it welcomes… funding for climate scientists such as himself.”
Well now just a darn minute. This seems to be a claim that merely disagreeing with this scientist or, indeed, with the all holy “consensus,” is the same thing as defaming said scientist and/or those who are part of creating that consensus, because some reader might conclude that the scientists weren’t professional in reaching their conclusions–even if that charge was never actually leveled. If that is what the lawsuit actually alleges in part or in whole, it is an astonishing claim and a spear aimed at the heart of heterodox comment and free public debate.
Then too, these things sometimes backfire because matters quickly run out of control. Look what happened to Oscar Wilde.
April 22nd, 2010 | 5:08 pm
Arrest Nutzuki and Al Gore too.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
April 22nd, 2010 at 5:12 pm
NOT THAT YOU ARE IMPLYING ANYTHING!!!!!!
April 22nd, 2010 | 5:21 pm
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Vince Humphreys. Vince Humphreys said: SHS: Climate Scientist Cries “Libel,” but is it Really “Disagreement?” http://bit.ly/aqkvkh #tcot [...]
April 22nd, 2010 | 5:25 pm
You are a loony.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
April 22nd, 2010 at 5:27 pm
Well, that’s erudite. Hey, I know! I’ll sue!
April 22nd, 2010 | 5:48 pm
“Wait a minute. Publishing falsehoods or misleading people about a public policy issue isn’t–or at least, in my view–shouldn’t be–libel. However, if Weaver was accused, for example, of professional malfeasance or misfeasance–say, of making up research or plagarism (sic) –assuming it is false, that could be libel. Thus, this charge might be libel, if proved…”
Right. At least here in the United States you can’t libel public figures unless there’s provable intent to do harm. And even then it’s difficult.
Now I notice that a number of people (yourself included) have been very critical of Al Gore in connection with his opinions about global warming even though he has no more power to formulate national policy than you, I or any other voter.
Isn’t it great to be able to hide behind American libel law? Now IMHO if you really had the courage of your convictions you’d take a day trip to Canada and make some of your usual remarks about Mr. Gore, and let the chips fall where they may. Assuming your past words have been without malice you can always plead truth (the traditional defense in slander and libel suits).
What say, Wesley? Ready to put your money where your mouth and keyboard are?
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
April 22nd, 2010 at 5:53 pm
So, History Writer, want to say that about me in Canada, that I have libeled Gore? That’s libel!
April 22nd, 2010 | 8:30 pm
I have read the statement of claim, and am very familiar and critical of libel law in Canada and am working with others to get the Sulivan standard applied here. However, The National post is attributing words and actions to Weaver which are defamatory and he denies them. Some of them do deal with ‘the science’ but in the context of what The National Post claims Weaver has said, which he denies.
You can’t sue for libel over disputes concerning what science theory is right. You can sue, though, if a party claims your position is other than what it is. In academic circles, that’s potentially injurious to one’s career.
One entire column penned by The National Post’s editor was written around a stated fact by that editor claiming that Weaver had jumped ship from the IPCC and had basically condemned it. Weaver claims this is completely false. Indeed, it’s readily verifiable that neither are true. That’s not a scientific dispute, that’s a claim of false fact. The National Post presented that issue as plain fact, not as opinion.
Weaver claims to have evidence of damages, which is not required in Canada.
So, yes, Weaver has a case. As libel law is complex, and as The National Post will present some sort of defense, where this will go is unknown.
I’ve seen NP settle libel claims before.
April 23rd, 2010 | 3:45 am
When the facts support you, present the facts. Otherwise if the science supports you present the science otherwise if all else fails sue.
April 23rd, 2010 | 11:12 am
“Such statements, the lawsuit says, would lead readers to conclude that Weaver “is so strongly motivated by a corrupt interest in receiving government funding that he willfully conceals scientific climate data which refutes global warming in order to keep alarming the public so that it welcomes… funding for climate scientists such as himself.””
It doesn’t _appear_ – from what you presented – that any such accusation was made. It may, however, be a reasonable conclusion. In fact, the very fact that it was brought up might indicate that someone has a guilty conscience???? Isn’t that called “projection”?
April 23rd, 2010 | 2:45 pm
“So, History Writer, want to say that about me in Canada, that I have libeled Gore? That’s libel!”
That’s not what I said, so stop trying to extricate yourself. I said, in so many words, that anyone who had the courage of his convictions wouldn’t be totally chickens**t about making their usual remarks about Al Gore in Canada. If the shoe just happens to fit, well then ….
April 24th, 2010 | 9:31 pm
The New York Times ran an article about the American Petroleum Institute in April of 1998. It outlines a very specific and detailed plan by oil and gas industry representatives to invest millions of dollars in an effort to undermine support for the Kyoto Protocol and discredit the scientific consensus opinion that greenhouse gases are causing the planet to warm.
http://www.euronet.nl/users/e_wesker/ew@shell/API-prop.html
The draft plan, titled “Global Climate Science Communications Action Plan,” concedes that opposition to the protocol is not shared by the public or a vast majority of scientists worldwide. “There has been little, if any, public resistance or pressure applied to Congress to reject the treaty, except by those ‘inside the Beltway’ with vested interests,” it notes.
Read: Global Climate Science Communications Action Plan
http://harryhammer.wordpress.com/2010/03/15/global-climate-science-communications-action-plan/
April 25th, 2010 | 6:44 am
History Writer, I’ll take you up on your offer – I am happy to proclaim my views of Mr. Gore to any that will listen and they are probably similar to Mr. Smith’s. Will you pay for my trip? I frankly don’t care enough about Mr. Gore to cross the street, and certainly not enough to pay to travel anywhere. I must say I find it quite humorous that someone who hides behind a nom de plume is calling another person chicken**** for a purported reluctance to make public statements.
Harry Braun, Science isn’t dependent on consensus; the very use of the phrase “scientific consensus opinion” betrays a political agenda. The fact that the debate is so politicized ought to give thinking people pause. I readily admit that I am probably not qualified to judge the science, but I am quite qualified to judge arguments and the global warming arguments are largely based on models which are themselves based on assumptions of AGW. When I see the proponents of a theory that demands the restructuring of society and the condemnation of billions to poverty being intellectually dishonest and engaging in ad hominem attacks on their opponents, I judge their position to be weak. Yelling louder that this makes me a denier really doesn’t impress me. The fact that API wanted to convince people that climate warming was a myth doesn’t worry me – it is what I would expect. Have they lied about it? Harry Hansen, the father of global warming scare mongering, has and has stated that global warming is so important it is worth lying about. Here are some facts about climate: it changes. It has been warmer than it is now. It has been colder than it is now. There has been more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere than there is now. There has been less. The correlation between these various facts, if any, is not understood.
Climate is immensely complex and we aren’t even close to understanding it – a little humility on the part of the global warming crowd would seem to be called for.
April 25th, 2010 | 9:39 am
John Seymour:
What makes you think Al Gore or, for that matter, anyone in Canada, would take your opinion seriously? No, I think the publicity-seeking Mr. Smith ought to be the one who goes.
April 27th, 2010 | 8:46 pm
John See more,
Stay on target!
Historywriter,
Are you looking to get a job with Al?
I assume jeffery and david have given up or been given jobs with the present administration.
April 27th, 2010 | 10:02 pm
and one more item… I will go to canada on behalf of any of the above.. the snowboarding is great (on the west end). However, the only way I will go is if I can fly the same way WE pay for our politicians to fly. I mean canada is great they have huge oil reserves in upper alberta and diamonds in the yukon/northern territory, tourism in b.c……oh, why would I live here?…I mean have you tried the duck?!!…its fabulous !
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact