6 ms·

Stupid Legal Threats: You Can't Write About Me Because of Your Blog's Name

105 points by tokenadult 14y ago

Zikes 14y ago
One wonders if Dr. Fernandez is now similarly concerned with his name being associated with popes and/or hats.
- stretchwithme 14y ago
  Oh, dear. I hope no one thinks he's a hacker now.
darxius 14y ago
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.
hmottestad 14y ago
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 14y ago
  Plea. :)
  - hmottestad 14y ago
    nouns and verbs, so much fun. Thanks.
stretchwithme 14y ago
This is like suing because someone did a profile on you and published it on Yahoo.
- pyre 14y ago
  But someone might see that profile an think that I'm a 'yahoo!'
  - stretchwithme 14y ago
    Wouldn't that have happened anyway :-)
- phaemon 14y ago
  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 14y ago
    It really depends on what is said. Rapist watch can profile people who watch for rapists too.
incision 14y ago
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.
- benjamincburns 14y ago
  > That seems unnecessarily nasty. He seems quite concerned with the Streisand Effect. Maybe there's a bit of link bait going on here? If he can convince the good doctor to threaten suit against him, maybe he can be the benefactor instead of Retraction Watch. </tinfoil-hat> [Edit: If nothing else, heated/opinionated discussion makes for interesting reading.]
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- comex 14y ago
  > 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 14y ago
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 14y ago
  >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 14y ago
    Ask someone who's been arrested in error.
    - nilved 14y ago
      Or someone who was arrested. Convicted criminals have rights too.
    - aidenn0 14y ago
      Okay, I'll bite: can someone who's been arrested in error tell me what's wrong with publishing mugshots?
      - anigbrowl 14y ago
        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.
        tokenadult 14y ago
        You ask a fair question, which I wrote about in a post just in the last day or so. (I was remembering a post from more than a year ago, as I recall, from another HN participant.) Different societies resolve these trade-offs differently, but the United States strongly favors making all arrest records public precisely to avoid having secret arrests, a feature of life in countries with a secret police service. (I have lived in such a country.) Yeah, sure, if I had a mugshot, I'd rather not have it all over the Internet, but if I did have a mugshot on the Internet, it wouldn't displace everything else about me on the Internet. As I recall, there is a mug shot of Bill Gates on the Internet, but that doesn't do the most to form his reputation. So simply put, the trade-off here in the United States is that speech is counteracted by more speech. Rather little is done in secret here. Again, I have lived where the trade-offs are different, and I think that this is a generally desirable trade-off, and that United States defamation law strikes a good balance, with the defence of truth being very dispositive in defamation cases. AFTER EDIT: Contrary to what is suggested by HN participant lutusp in another subthread here, there is no "false light" problem in the case the complaining doctor is complaining about. I am a lawyer, and I wouldn't dream of relying on Wikipedia for legal advice or even lay summaries of the law on most subjects.
lutusp 14y ago
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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_light
- chacham15 14y ago
  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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_defamation_law)
  - lutusp 14y ago
    > 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.
losethos 14y ago
masturbation berp God says... companions oppose guidances putting parties strangely seasoned villa thickeneth high_mucky_muck when- Knowing Cup MADE Rwanda distracted deridedst appeared contemplating vanities Files birth keep tasteth functions briars seem slippery confiding debated powerful declare abideth discommended attracts exigency Hasta venture http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telltale_Heart http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telltale_Heart False confessions will confuse the enemy. God says... troops France but Philippians pair filled carry likedst chump_change hold_on_a_minute European_Union solemnise upheld et_tu revolting moan usage redeemer whereat ANYTHING Grief nourishing simplicity innocent aches elements plenteous cubit comfort first receive joys Anon tree Sun recommending posted The modern version of the tell tale heart: http://www.noob.us/humor/the-office-dwight-faces-nerd-torture-of-the-highest-form/ http://www.noob.us/humor/the-office-dwight-faces-nerd-tortur...
losethos 14y ago
I talk with God. <Chuckle> The shit you do to others gets done to you. God says... amiable returning each rather beholder thirdly showedst Incarnation convert wrote handling BREACH suspicious nought ebbs in-breathing Sometimes Gutenberg David tempted fettered Files bad Where relied Basilica lecture palaces editing observance searching fleshy ungodliness soap_opera filleth indued momentous polished Robert tranquil shortly fostering sweet-attuned leasing exercise and_then_what striking whirlpool lighten quarter powerful how_goes_it carrying drowsiness regenerated wroth retained foolish grief take_your_pick do_you_want_another where Nebridius minded beloved tempted it_was_nothing children fixedly longed hinder care game honesty Evil conservative per equals justice hooah aquatic YOU Helpidius resurrection intense efforts dinner wantonness laws however Hide boiling detail chance population God_is_not_mocked law-skirmishes killest PUBLIC coursing VI sails cheerful REMEDIES dawn renounce idly faintly stanzas poems loosed choler formlessness worm power breadth skilled dwelling-place lentiles perceives quiet deliberation pear
lyndonh 14y ago
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 ?
freddealmeida 14y ago
That's OK, he has lawdingo. :-)
zowch 14y ago
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?

105 points by tokenadult 14y ago

Zikes 14y ago

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

stretchwithme 14y ago
Oh, dear. I hope no one thinks he's a hacker now.

darxius 14y ago

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.

hmottestad 14y ago

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 14y ago
Plea. :)
- hmottestad 14y ago
  nouns and verbs, so much fun. Thanks.

stretchwithme 14y ago

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

pyre 14y ago
But someone might see that profile an think that I'm a 'yahoo!'
- stretchwithme 14y ago
  Wouldn't that have happened anyway :-)
phaemon 14y ago
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 14y ago
  It really depends on what is said. Rapist watch can profile people who watch for rapists too.

incision 14y ago

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.

benjamincburns 14y ago
> That seems unnecessarily nasty. He seems quite concerned with the Streisand Effect. Maybe there's a bit of link bait going on here? If he can convince the good doctor to threaten suit against him, maybe he can be the benefactor instead of Retraction Watch. </tinfoil-hat> [Edit: If nothing else, heated/opinionated discussion makes for interesting reading.]
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
comex 14y ago
> 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 14y ago

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 14y ago
>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 14y ago
  Ask someone who's been arrested in error.
  - nilved 14y ago
    Or someone who was arrested. Convicted criminals have rights too.
  - aidenn0 14y ago
    Okay, I'll bite: can someone who's been arrested in error tell me what's wrong with publishing mugshots?
    - anigbrowl 14y ago
      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.
      - tokenadult 14y ago
        You ask a fair question, which I wrote about in a post just in the last day or so. (I was remembering a post from more than a year ago, as I recall, from another HN participant.) Different societies resolve these trade-offs differently, but the United States strongly favors making all arrest records public precisely to avoid having secret arrests, a feature of life in countries with a secret police service. (I have lived in such a country.) Yeah, sure, if I had a mugshot, I'd rather not have it all over the Internet, but if I did have a mugshot on the Internet, it wouldn't displace everything else about me on the Internet. As I recall, there is a mug shot of Bill Gates on the Internet, but that doesn't do the most to form his reputation. So simply put, the trade-off here in the United States is that speech is counteracted by more speech. Rather little is done in secret here. Again, I have lived where the trade-offs are different, and I think that this is a generally desirable trade-off, and that United States defamation law strikes a good balance, with the defence of truth being very dispositive in defamation cases. AFTER EDIT: Contrary to what is suggested by HN participant lutusp in another subthread here, there is no "false light" problem in the case the complaining doctor is complaining about. I am a lawyer, and I wouldn't dream of relying on Wikipedia for legal advice or even lay summaries of the law on most subjects.

lutusp 14y ago

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

chacham15 14y ago
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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_defamation_law)
- lutusp 14y ago
  > 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.

losethos 14y ago

masturbation berp God says... companions oppose guidances putting parties strangely seasoned villa thickeneth high_mucky_muck when- Knowing Cup MADE Rwanda distracted deridedst appeared contemplating vanities Files birth keep tasteth functions briars seem slippery confiding debated powerful declare abideth discommended attracts exigency Hasta venture http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telltale_Heart http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telltale_Heart False confessions will confuse the enemy. God says... troops France but Philippians pair filled carry likedst chump_change hold_on_a_minute European_Union solemnise upheld et_tu revolting moan usage redeemer whereat ANYTHING Grief nourishing simplicity innocent aches elements plenteous cubit comfort first receive joys Anon tree Sun recommending posted The modern version of the tell tale heart: http://www.noob.us/humor/the-office-dwight-faces-nerd-torture-of-the-highest-form/ http://www.noob.us/humor/the-office-dwight-faces-nerd-tortur...

losethos 14y ago

I talk with God. <Chuckle> The shit you do to others gets done to you. God says... amiable returning each rather beholder thirdly showedst Incarnation convert wrote handling BREACH suspicious nought ebbs in-breathing Sometimes Gutenberg David tempted fettered Files bad Where relied Basilica lecture palaces editing observance searching fleshy ungodliness soap_opera filleth indued momentous polished Robert tranquil shortly fostering sweet-attuned leasing exercise and_then_what striking whirlpool lighten quarter powerful how_goes_it carrying drowsiness regenerated wroth retained foolish grief take_your_pick do_you_want_another where Nebridius minded beloved tempted it_was_nothing children fixedly longed hinder care game honesty Evil conservative per equals justice hooah aquatic YOU Helpidius resurrection intense efforts dinner wantonness laws however Hide boiling detail chance population God_is_not_mocked law-skirmishes killest PUBLIC coursing VI sails cheerful REMEDIES dawn renounce idly faintly stanzas poems loosed choler formlessness worm power breadth skilled dwelling-place lentiles perceives quiet deliberation pear

lyndonh 14y ago

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 ?

freddealmeida 14y ago

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

zowch 14y ago

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?