If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Opposing Views)   Advice to bloggers: Comparing someone who isn't actually a child molester to Jerry Sandusky is probably going to get you sued   (opposingviews.com) divider line 48
    More: Asinine, Judges' Rules, Jerry Sandusky, Michael E. Mann, libel, climatologists, Chronicle of Higher Education  
•       •       •

4582 clicks; posted to Main » on 06 Sep 2013 at 1:01 PM (31 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



48 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-09-06 01:03:28 PM
Does that mean the Paterno family can sue the media and the Internet?
 
2013-09-06 01:03:55 PM
Waste of the court's time.
 
2013-09-06 01:04:12 PM
Like:
Subby has urges, like Jerry Sandusky?

/didn't rtfa
 
2013-09-06 01:05:45 PM
Not suing over the Sandusky comparison, but over the charges of fraud.
 
2013-09-06 01:06:15 PM
Your blog sucks
 
2013-09-06 01:06:25 PM
To be fair, threes look like butts, and were probably begging for it.
 
2013-09-06 01:07:32 PM
Advice to bloggers: Comparing someone who isn't actually a child molester to Jerry Sandusky is probably going to get you sued Stop it. Just stop it. No one cares about your shiatty public diary. If you had any skills as a writer or journalist, you'd be a writer or journalist.
 
2013-09-06 01:07:36 PM
When the judge tells you the other side is likely to succeed and they are about to sue your pants off...might be time to make a bargain for shorts.
 
2013-09-06 01:11:48 PM
I just drove through Sandusky Ohio.

I fely dirty afterward and a bit confused.
 
2013-09-06 01:15:27 PM

scottydoesntknow: Advice to bloggers: Comparing someone who isn't actually a child molester to Jerry Sandusky is probably going to get you sued Stop it. Just stop it. No one cares about your shiatty public diary. If you had any skills as a writer or journalist, you'd be a writer or journalist.


True. However many of the articles I read from these so called 'newspapers' are littered with grammatical and punctuation errors. Pick your poison I guess.
 
2013-09-06 01:19:19 PM

The Muthaship: Waste of the court's time.


You mean the court that stated he was likely to win on the merits when it let the case move forward?
 
2013-09-06 01:21:23 PM

CheatCommando: The Muthaship: Waste of the court's time.

You mean the court that stated he was likely to win on the merits when it let the case move forward?


If the claim is based on the claims that he committed fraud, that's a different matter.  I don't see how he prevails over a tortured analogy.
 
2013-09-06 01:23:01 PM
These right-wing outfits have proven themselves to lack ethics, decency and often common sense, so go ahead and sue 'em. If normal people don't hold them accountable now, when should they?
 
2013-09-06 01:23:51 PM
Ken? Ken Cuccinelli? Is that you?
 
2013-09-06 01:39:23 PM

The Muthaship: CheatCommando: The Muthaship: Waste of the court's time.

You mean the court that stated he was likely to win on the merits when it let the case move forward?

If the claim is based on the claims that he committed fraud, that's a different matter.  I don't see how he prevails over a tortured analogy.


I'm just going with the facts stated in the article, not an uninformed opinion based on a Fark headline.
 
2013-09-06 01:41:40 PM

CheatCommando: I'm just going with the facts stated in the article, not an uninformed opinion based on a Fark headline.


I'm pretty sure that's cheating.
 
2013-09-06 01:42:26 PM
Projecting?

b.vimeocdn.com
 
2013-09-06 01:44:28 PM

The Muthaship: If the claim is based on the claims that he committed fraud....


They are. Maybe you could have taken the thirty seconds require to verify that before posting?

The Muthaship: I don't see how he prevails over a tortured analogy.


Because comparing a person to a convicted child molester, especially when you do so via baseless accusations of fraud, is pretty clearly libelous?
 
2013-09-06 01:48:08 PM

skozlaw: Because comparing a person to a convicted child molester, especially when you do so via baseless accusations of fraud, is pretty clearly libelous?


I don't agree in this case.  He didn't impute any of Sandusky's sexual conduct to the researcher.  Just said that he manipulated the data and used a little ill advised word play in doing so.  If it can be proven that the blogger knew that there was no fraud, the libel claim should prevail.  But, libel based on being compared to Sandusky in the way it happened here doesn't seem to exist.
 
2013-09-06 01:49:21 PM

The Muthaship: I don't see how he prevails over a tortured analogy.


Because labeling someone as a child molester is not only pretty libelous, but rumors like that have significant civil and professional implications.
 
2013-09-06 01:50:28 PM

hardinparamedic: Because labeling someone as a child molester


I would agree, if he had done that.
 
2013-09-06 01:51:34 PM
Why does opposing views always make my phone load up the google play store page for candy crush sagas?

/annoyed that there is sometimes so much extra bullshiat on a webpage that it's damn near impossible to read on a mobile platform.
 
2013-09-06 02:03:16 PM
Oh yeah, this guy was literally like Jerry Sandusky!

And by literally, I don't literally mean literally. :D
 
2013-09-06 02:03:59 PM
I guess this means we can expect more beg-a-thon posts from the NRO asking their readers to pay for their legal costs. So much for the bootstraps they were using to support themselves
 
2013-09-06 02:07:56 PM
"the Jerry Sandusky of climate science, except that instead of molesting children, he has molested and tortured data in the service of politicized science."

I'm not a writing professional but this seems like the sort of comparison that anyone should be able to look at and say "this is terrible writing which relies on an analogy that is incredibly weak and reaches so desperately that my literature teacher would be embarrassed to say they taught me if I include it."

What could anyone be thinking writing that?  Never mind libel, it is just bad writing.  The Bulwer-Lytton contest has examples of better writing in it than that.
 
2013-09-06 02:14:40 PM
Bullshiat lawsuit. Libel would be to actually claim that this guy molested children, whereas the article in question clearly states the exact opposite of that. You are allowed to make extreme metaphors in this country. End of story.
 
2013-09-06 02:16:23 PM
If what's in TFA is all they said, I have a difficult time believing that Mann will prevail at trial.

Poor judgment, bad taste and crass behavior, as much as I'd like them to be, are not against the law.
 
2013-09-06 02:20:50 PM

Gergesa: The Bulwer-Lytton contest has examples of better writing in it than that.


I had to look up what that was.

Dear God. I thought My Immortal was a joke.
 
2013-09-06 02:20:56 PM

Ctrl-Alt-Del: I guess this means we can expect more beg-a-thon posts from the NRO asking their readers to pay for their legal costs. So much for the bootstraps they were using to support themselves


Isn't pulling yourself up by your bootstraps an impossible task, anyway?
 
2013-09-06 02:21:28 PM

Tommy Moo: Bullshiat lawsuit. Libel would be to actually claim that this guy molested children,


You know how I know you didn't read the article?

The libel suit isn't over the reference to Sandusky, it's over the fact that they accused him of fraud
 
2013-09-06 02:23:00 PM
In other news The Chronicle of Higher Education is now considered to be a right wing blog by the media.

Michael E. Mann, Top Climate Scientist, Can Proceed WIth Libel Suit Against Right Wing Blogs, Judge Rules
...
'The other blog post, by Peter Wood writing for The Chronicle of Higher Education, also drew a comparison between the Sandusky case and Mann's alleged involvement in "Climategate," albeit less directly.

Mann sued both The Chronicle and National Review, saying that the publications had defamed him and damaged his reputation.'
 
2013-09-06 02:23:45 PM

Tommy Moo: Bullshiat lawsuit. Libel would be to actually claim that this guy molested children, whereas the article in question clearly states the exact opposite of that. You are allowed to make extreme metaphors in this country. End of story.


Not when that claim also includes a claim of fraud that has been legally disproven.

/That claim of fraud was over "Climategate", which a review board said there was nothing even unethical about the practices mentioned in the e-mails, much less illegal.
 
2013-09-06 02:28:33 PM

The Muthaship: ...ill advised word play...


Likening somebody to a convicted child molester is not "ill-advised word play". It's defamatory. I really don't see how you think have an argument about that. Likening a person to a child molester, when they are not actually a child molester, is a pretty obvious attempt at hurting a person's reputation, which is defamation, which in print is libel.

ESPECIALLY when your "evidence" for the comparison is itself libelous.
 
2013-09-06 02:33:57 PM

skozlaw: The Muthaship: ...ill advised word play...

Likening somebody to a convicted child molester is not "ill-advised word play". It's defamatory. I really don't see how you think have an argument about that. Likening a person to a child molester, when they are not actually a child molester, is a pretty obvious attempt at hurting a person's reputation, which is defamation, which in print is libel.

ESPECIALLY when your "evidence" for the comparison is itself libelous.


Saying, essentially, "This guy molests climate data like Sandusky molests little boys." does not in any way allege that he molests little boys.  His case lies in proving that there was no reasonable basis for the blogger to allege fraud in the research results.
 
2013-09-06 02:34:53 PM

Ctrl-Alt-Del: Tommy Moo: Bullshiat lawsuit. Libel would be to actually claim that this guy molested children,

You know how I know you didn't read the article?

The libel suit isn't over the reference to Sandusky, it's over the fact that they accused him of fraud



The only thing the article says with regard to why he is suing is the following:

In the post quoted on National Review, writer Rand Simberg calls Mann, "the Jerry Sandusky of climate science, except that instead of molesting children, he has molested and tortured data in the service of politicized science."

The word "fraud" does not show up in the article until the last paragraph, where the judge is injecting his own extrapolation. The authors themselves never used the word "fraud."
 
2013-09-06 02:46:58 PM

The Muthaship: His case lies in proving that there was no reasonable basis for the blogger to allege fraud in the research results.


Nobody's disputing that, the analogy to Sandusky is an aggravating factor, not the key to the suit.
 
2013-09-06 02:47:37 PM

skozlaw: The Muthaship: His case lies in proving that there was no reasonable basis for the blogger to allege fraud in the research results.

Nobody's disputing that, the analogy to Sandusky is an aggravating factor, not the key to the suit.


I think then that we can proceed to the cocktail portion of our weekend.

Cheers.
 
2013-09-06 02:47:58 PM

gblive: In other news The Chronicle of Higher Education is now considered to be a right wing blog by the media.

Michael E. Mann, Top Climate Scientist, Can Proceed WIth Libel Suit Against Right Wing Blogs, Judge Rules
...
'The other blog post, by Peter Wood writing for The Chronicle of Higher Education, also drew a comparison between the Sandusky case and Mann's alleged involvement in "Climategate," albeit less directly.

Mann sued both The Chronicle and National Review, saying that the publications had defamed him and damaged his reputation.'


Take a good look at the address on that link.
 
2013-09-06 02:57:52 PM
What if I say some dude is as ugly as Sandusky? Is it still defamatory?
 
2013-09-06 03:09:47 PM

Sharksfan: When the judge tells you the other side is likely to succeed and they are about to sue your pants off...might be time to make a bargain for shorts.


or try to get a judge that isn't obviously biased.
 
2013-09-06 03:35:11 PM

stevarooni: Oh yeah, this guy was literally like Jerry Sandusky!

And by literally, I don't literally mean literally. :D


Ha! I've been using "(something) which is literally, and by 'literally', I mean 'figuratively', (unfair comparison)" in real life conversations.
 
2013-09-06 04:07:29 PM
I am sooooo looking forward to the discovery phase.

That's when we'll discover if the National Review's writers have a relationship with David Koch that is itself, a little, reminiscent of the Sandusky case.
 
2013-09-06 04:42:49 PM
Sandusky is the new Godwin. What is this guy, a Fox News correspondent?

:::read TFA::: Oh.
 
2013-09-06 04:56:45 PM

The Muthaship: skozlaw: The Muthaship: ...ill advised word play...

Likening somebody to a convicted child molester is not "ill-advised word play". It's defamatory. I really don't see how you think have an argument about that. Likening a person to a child molester, when they are not actually a child molester, is a pretty obvious attempt at hurting a person's reputation, which is defamation, which in print is libel.

ESPECIALLY when your "evidence" for the comparison is itself libelous.

Saying, essentially, "This guy molests climate data like Sandusky molests little boys." does not in any way allege that he molests little boys.  His case lies in proving that there was no reasonable basis for the blogger to allege fraud in the research results.


Maybe you should haul your ass up there and try to get on the jury.
 
2013-09-06 05:29:34 PM
What's that judge smoking? I don't see how he can win.
 
2013-09-06 05:32:12 PM
The "Climatgate" scandal was widely discredited and the e-mails were shown to be taken out of context.

ha ha !
o wow
um yeah...no
 
2013-09-06 07:09:54 PM

jigger: The "Climatgate" scandal was widely discredited and the e-mails were shown to be taken out of context.

ha ha !
o wow
um yeah...no


Um...yes. That's why most folks chuckle whenever some idiot claims "Climategate" was anything other than an attempt to change the narrative. I love the quote that such idiots "were led by the nose, by those with a clear agenda, to a sizzling scandal that steadily defused as the true facts and context were made clear."
 
2013-09-06 08:08:06 PM

IlGreven: Tommy Moo: Bullshiat lawsuit. Libel would be to actually claim that this guy molested children, whereas the article in question clearly states the exact opposite of that. You are allowed to make extreme metaphors in this country. End of story.

Not when that claim also includes a claim of fraud that has been legally disproven.

/That claim of fraud was over "Climategate", which a review board said there was nothing even unethical about the practices mentioned in the e-mails, much less illegal.


The Chronicle article didn't even compare him to Sandusky.  He was just used as an example of lax oversight at Penn State.
 
Displayed 48 of 48 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report