Depends whose ox is being gored, as usual. But, the reality is that Larry Flint's case had the added defense of "parody." I the case of Shermer, this is no parody. They are making serious accusations. Larry Flint was sued by Jerry Falwell, but I think Falwell admitted that the piece was humor and that nobody would believe he fucked his mother, etc.charlou wrote:Larry Flint's legacy has pros and cons, it seems.Coito ergo sum wrote:The problem for Shermer is that he's a public figure, and defamation claims in the US are almost impossible to win. And, the cost would be very high. He would have to file a civil complaint and a motion for an injunction asking that the stuff be taken down. That alone would likely cost him $20,000 minimum to have any chance of success. To get the injunction he would have to prove that he is being irreparably harmed, that money damages will not suffice to cure his injuries, that the public interest is served by an injunction, and that he has a likelihood to ultimately succeed in a defamation trial which would mean that he would have to prove: (A) a false and defamatory statement, (b) intentionally uttered, (c) with malice on the part of PZ, (d) and damages, and typically the proof in defamation cases is held to a higher standard than normal civil cases. This is the NY Times v Sullivan standard in the US.Pappa wrote:Wow.... after reading that it's crazy that PZ hasn't complied with the demands to remove the post and post a retraction. What a fool.rachelbean wrote:The full cease and desist letter can be read here:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/159838891/she ... ter-to-pzm
Almost impossible. Very tough. Very expensive. Great for the lawyers, because they get paid by the hour, and they have to set the client's expectations low. They would say "our chances of winning are slim, and the chances of you paying us a lot of money are 100%."
The problem with Shermer's case, though, is that a person making an allegedly defamatory statement doesn't have the burden of proving it is true. The complaining person ,Shermer, has to prove that it is false. If women are making these complaints, then the defendant can say "I really was told this by a woman who said it happened to her." And, then there is "good faith" on the part of the defendant. The intent on the part of the defendant must be to defame the person. Intending to convey truthful information to warn others would be a defense, and to back that up PZ could claim that he believed the women in good faith and reported the info in good faith. If all Shermer can do is come up with a reasonably likely scenario where PZ might really be in this for the blog hits, well, it's possible he would win in a jury trial, but that's $20,000 to $50,000, and 12 to 18 months later, followed by PZ's inevitable appeal which adds another 12 months and $25,000 minimum.
So, nobody really wants to bring these cases, and when they are brought the defendant will always litigate the fuck out of it, and then they will file what is known as a motion for summary judgment raising all the free speech defenses and good faith defenses saying that the plaintiff can't present evidence of a prima facie case. Even if the defendant loses that motion, it still adds $10,000 to the cost of litigation for the Plaintiff.
and, then the Plaintiff has to prove money damages in a non-speculative way. So, if the long and short of it is that nobody really believes that Shermer did this, or that his reputation isn't being measurably injured by this bullshit, then his damages are pretty low. What's he going to get out of this? If people start dropping him from the lecture circuit, or if he has a marked decrease in book sales coinciding with these allegations, that would be decent proof of damages, but he has to make sure that he can make a decent case of "proximate cause" -- that is, that the damages are caused by the defamation, and not loss of interest in his lecturing.
These are tough cases, that almost always amount to rolls of the dice.