If the linked recitation in any way corresponds to reality, and it seems to, the professor has a legitimate complaint, but he should have consulted an attorney

If the linked recitation in any way corresponds to reality, and it seems to, the professor has a legitimate complaint, but he should have consulted an attorney before publishing his responses to the various parties involved. The reason I say this is because, even though he appears to be in the right and has a reason to be outraged, he could be sued for libel himself. As one example, if he describes a named or identifiable person as a "liar" online, the subject could sue for defamation of character if it turns out that they didn't know what they said was false (which fails the definition of "lying"). That's a simple case where an extreme, emotional term places someone in a false light. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_light http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_light Remember, in this litigous society, no one is immune from legal actions, even those clearly wronged, as the facts seem to indicate in this case.