Should we ban libel in these forums?

[laptoppop]

Should we ban libel in these forums? I'm not even talking about going as far as loving each other, and following the golden rule -- just about full-blown libel.

The classic definition of libel is: "a publication without justification or lawful excuse which is calculated to injure the reputation of another by exposing him to hatred, contempt or ridicule."
(Parke, B. in Parmiter v. Coupland (1840) GM&W 105 at 108)
http://www.cyberlibel.com/libel.html

Specifically, should we write the rules such that calling people or organizations, (either evolutionary or creationism related) liars, con-men, sham artists, etc. without specific proof is banned?

The important discussion points can always be made without libelous name calling. For example:
"The presuppositions of (creationists/conventional geologists) compromises their ability to analyze the data in this case impartially."
comes off much better than
"Those lying con-men who don't know how to do science"

I want to note that I think both creationists and TEs have done this in the past -- and I think in both cases we are in danger of hurting our brothers and sisters in Christ just because we disagree with them. I also want to note that there are certain people specifically in this forum that I disagree with that I look forward to having a sasparilla with in heaven.

In many ways, I guess I'm advocating for something similar to what many marriage counselors suggest -- fighting fair, without name calling. When organizations or groups of people get called names, then it reflects poorly on these forums.

I am asking for us to make a clear distinction between the doctrines and beliefs and the people and even the organizations who hold them.

Opinions?

 

[KerrMetric]

Should we just name the individuals who fib instead?

Duane Gish, a protein biochemist with a Ph.D. from Berkeley, is vice-president of the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) and creationism's most well-known spokesperson. A veteran of perhaps 150 public debates and thousands of lectures and sermons on creationism, Gish is revered among creationists as a great scientist and a tireless fighter for the truth. Among noncreationists, however, Gish has a reputation for making erroneous statements and then pugnaciously refusing to acknowledge them. One example is an unfinished epic which might be called the tale of two proteins.
In July 1983, the Public Broadcasting System televised an hour-long program on creationism. One of the scientists interviewed, biochemist Russell Doolittle, discussed the similarities between human proteins and chimpanzee proteins. In many cases, corresponding human and chimpanzee proteins are identical, and, in others, they differ by only a few amino acids. This strongly suggests a common ancestry for humans and apes. Gish was asked to comment. He replied:

"If we look at certain proteins, yes, man then -- it can be assumed that man is more closely related to a chimpanzee than other things. But on the other hand, if you look at certain other proteins, you'll find that man is more closely related to a bullforg than he is to a chimapanzee. If you focus your attention on other proteins, you'll find that man is more closely related to a chicken than he is to a chimpanzee."​

I had never heard of such proteins, so I asked a few biochemists. They hadn't either. I wrote to Gish for supporting documentation. He ignored my first letter. In reply to my second, he referred me to Berkeley geochronologist Garniss Curtis. I wrote to Curtis, who replied immediately.

Some years ago, Curtis attended a conference in Austria where he heard that someone had found bullfrog blood proteins very similar to human blood proteins. Curtis offered an explanatory hypothesis: the "frog" which yielded the proteins was, he suggested, an enchanted prince. He then predicted that the research would never be confirmed. He was apparently correct, for nothing has been heard of the proteins since. But Duane Gish once heard Curtis tell his little story.
This bullfrog "documentation" (as Gish now calls it) struck me as a joke, even by creationist standards, and Gish simply ignored his alleged chicken proteins. In contrast, Doolittle backed his televised claims with published protein sequence data. I wrote to Gish again suggesting that he should be able to do the same. He didn't reply. Indeed, he has never since replied to any of my letters.
John W. Patterson and I attended the 1983 National Creation Conference in Roseville, Minnesota. We had several conversations there with Kevin Wirth, research director of Students for Origins Research (SOR). At some point, we told him the protein story and suggested that Gish might have lied on national television. Wirth was confident that Gish could document his claims. He told us that, if we put our charges in the form of a letter, he would do his best to get it published in Origins Research, the SOR tabloid.
Gish also attended the conference, and I asked him about the proteins in the presence of several creationists. Gish tried mightily to evade and to obfuscate, but I was firm. Doolittle provided sequence data for human and chimpanzee proteins; Gish could do the same - if his alleged chicken and bullfrog proteins really exist. Gish insisted that they exist and promised to send me the sequences. Skeptically, I asked him pointblank: "Will that be before hell freezes over?" He assured me that it would. After two-and- one-half years, I still have neither sequence data nor a report of frost in Hades.
Shortly after the conference, Patterson and I submitted a joint letter to Origins Research, briefly recounting the protein story and concluding, "We think Gish lied on national television." We sent Gish a copy of the letter in the same mail. During the next few months, Wirth (and probably others at SOR) practically begged Gish to submit a reply for publication. According to Wirth, someone at ICR, perhaps Gish himself, responded by pressuring SOR not to publish our letter. Unlike Gish, however, Kevin Wirth was as good as his word. The letter appeared in the spring 1984 issue of Origins Research -- with no reply from Gish.
The 1984 National Bible-Science Conference was held in Cleveland, and again Patterson and I attended. Again, I asked Gish for sequence data for his chicken and bullfrog proteins. This time, Gish told me that any further documentation for his proteins is up to Garniss Curtis and me. I next saw Gish on February, 18, 1985, when he debated philosopher of science Philip Kitcher at the University of Minnesota. Several days earlier, I had heralded Gish's coming (and his mythical proteins) in a guest editorial in the student newspaper, The Minnesota Daily. Kitcher alluded to the proteins early in the debate, and, in his final remarks, he demanded that Gish either produce references or admit that they do not exist. Gish, of course, did neither. His closing remarks were punctuated with sporadic cries of "Bullfrog!" from the audience.

 

[KerrMetric]

The classic definition of libel is: "a publication without justification or lawful excuse which is calculated to injure the reputation of another by exposing him to hatred, contempt or ridicule."

What are we to do when there is justification?

 

[shernren]

But of course such guidelines are already in place:

Members should not make posts about other members that are not true. This includes slander of another member or deliberate misrepresentations about another person's faith. If a post is found or shown to be indisputably untrue, it should be retracted.

from http://www.christianforums.com/t5692141-wiki-christian-forums-rules-draft-version-2.html

All that is needed is to change "faith" to something more inclusive, say "faith and intellectual positions". And voila! To call someone a con-man without evidence would then be shown to be "indisputably untrue" and would then be necessarily retracted.

It is as simple as that. Disprove the insults and they simply won't come.

And I don't get your suggestion. You propose:

"The presuppositions of (creationists/conventional geologists) compromises their ability to analyze the data in this case impartially."
comes off much better than
"Those lying con-men who don't know how to do science"

Why should it? Quite frankly, if I, during the course of a research project, were personally told that "your presuppositions are compromising your ability to analyze data impartially", I would feel just as offended as if I were called a "lying con-man". The entire job of science after all is to chew up presuppositions and spit out the ones that don't work in the real world. Any scientist who does something contrary to that in the name of science is being paid to do something that s/he isn't actually doing, i.e. being a con-man - be it atheists suggesting panspermia or creationists making up propaganda about bullfrog proteins.

 

[notto]

It isn't about beliefs. It is about evidence and facts. When a group continues to promote a falsified theory, they should be open to scrutiny and they are indeed con men as much as people who push perpetual motion or wonder cures.

If people are selling books saying the earth is 6000 years old, there is no reason not to say what they are. They are making money off of a falsehood. What should we call them?

 

[KokoTheGorilla2]

For example:
"The presuppositions of (creationists/conventional geologists) compromises their ability to analyze the data in this case impartially."
comes off much better than
"Those lying con-men who don't know how to do science"

Not coming off better!

Honesty is best policy!

Spade is spade, and banana is banana!

 

[shernren]

(emphasis added)

It isn't about beliefs. It is about evidence and facts. When a group continues to promote a falsified theory, they should be open to scrutiny and they are indeed con men as much as people who push perpetual motion or wonder cures.

If people are selling books saying the earth is 6000 years old, there is no reason not to say what they are. They are making money off of a falsehood. What should we call them?

Fortune-tellers? This was posted 11 days ago:

Infinite-energy theory challenges materialist thermodynamics dogma

Steorn's findings totally undermine the basic premise of materialism, simply by demonstrating a confirmed physical effect that materialists predict cannot happen. These clever Irish researchers have demonstrated that the principles of thermodynamics function in a manner far closer to the predictions of William Dembski and William Brookfield than the clearly flawed thermodynamic claims of Hawkings and Maxwell.

The same scientists who tell you that Intelligent Design is impossible also dispute the hard-facts of Steorn's peer-reviewed findings. I predict that this humble contraption will show the world just how much materialists have misled mainstream-science.
​

They nailed you, notto. Repent!

 

[The Lady Kate]

Should we ban libel in these forums? I'm not even talking about going as far as loving each other, and following the golden rule -- just about full-blown libel.

The classic definition of libel is: "a publication without justification or lawful excuse which is calculated to injure the reputation of another by exposing him to hatred, contempt or ridicule."
(Parke, B. in Parmiter v. Coupland (1840) GM&W 105 at 108)
http://www.cyberlibel.com/libel.html

Specifically, should we write the rules such that calling people or organizations, (either evolutionary or creationism related) liars, con-men, sham artists, etc. without specific proof is banned?

I've noticed that specific proof is usually offered... at least enough to cast reasonable doubt on a libel charge.

I'm no lawyer, but AFAIK, for a libel charge to stick, two things must be proven:

1: The statement in question must be untrue (truth is an absolute defense in libel cases)

2: The statement must have been made with the intent to hurt the victim's reputation. (IOW, it's a deliberate smear, not an honsest mistake. This is why libel cases aren't all that common... how does one prove intent?)

Now, when someone on these boards accuses someone of, let's say, quote-mining, that would be a good case for libel, except that often, the original quote, in its full context, is usually provided for a comparison.

Seeing the mined quote and the original, side by side, a reasonable person could come to the conclusion that the mining was deliberate.

The important discussion points can always be made without libelous name calling. For example:
"The presuppositions of (creationists/conventional geologists) compromises their ability to analyze the data in this case impartially."
comes off much better than
"Those lying con-men who don't know how to do science"

Regardless of how it "comes off," if a person could reasonably come to that second conclusion, there's no way to prove libel.

 

[notto]

(emphasis added)



Fortune-tellers? This was posted 11 days ago:

Infinite-energy theory challenges materialist thermodynamics dogma

Steorn's findings totally undermine the basic premise of materialism, simply by demonstrating a confirmed physical effect that materialists predict cannot happen. These clever Irish researchers have demonstrated that the principles of thermodynamics function in a manner far closer to the predictions of William Dembski and William Brookfield than the clearly flawed thermodynamic claims of Hawkings and Maxwell.

The same scientists who tell you that Intelligent Design is impossible also dispute the hard-facts of Steorn's peer-reviewed findings. I predict that this humble contraption will show the world just how much materialists have misled mainstream-science.
​

They nailed you, notto. Repent!

Wow. ID, astrology, AIDS denial, and now free energy. The creationists will tie their wagon to anything won't they.

Funny thing is that the none of the reviewers have yet to see the Orbo work and it isn't objective peer review if you select the reviewers yourself. The reviewers seem to have forgot to demand repeatability in their peer review (or even a single demonstration of methods used to record the data).

Why is it that creationists and free energy folks along with AIDS deniers have to go through this selective peer review instead of just publishing their work and accepted review that way. This ORBO crap is no different than Dembski publishing in the private press and claiming that because he had an editor, it was 'peer reviewed'.

I will have to keep that link. It will be interested to see what happens when they realize this is another false con job and they fell for it.

Thanks for the link.

 

[KokoTheGorilla2]

How is someone's reputation hurt when most posters post under usernames?

 

[ExpatChristian]

Spade is spade, and banana is banana!

 

[Assyrian]

How is someone's reputation hurt when most posters post under usernames?

Kokothegorilla not really Kokothegorilla???

 

[ExpatChristian]

The problem is simple. Often there is proof that someone or some handle is corrupted or a falsifier etc. But the mods will take any accusation to be some kind of libel just to be on the safe side. The libel issue is never properly adjudicated and just becomes enveloped by the general all-purpose don't insult rule. So if your accusation is true, you will just get summarily dispatched under the libel rule nonetheless. Take a recent concrete example on this forum which is a case study in the matter. archaeologist accused gladuys of plagiarism (an accusation which could have been adjudicated on the basis of evidence on this forum, but gladuys is not the kind of handle to report people so archie got away with it - and it was libel). For me this was too much as archaeologist is a known plagiarizer. There is evidence for it and this evidence is posted on
http://captporridge.com/bb/index.php?topic=1251.0
in the form of an English text book "written" by archie that involves massive theft of exercises and artwork from commercial text books. He did not get permission to use any of this stuff. This book is in the public domain. It was published by some school in Korea that uses it. It constitutes bona[FONT=&quot]　[/FONT]fide evidence. It is simply the truth. Calling him a plagiarizer is not libel. It is the truth. Now here is a test for what it under discussion here. Mods, are you going to delete this post as well, or are you going to adjudicate? If you delete then this topic is a dead duck, because no adjudication means no meaning for the word libel or truth. I can understand that adjudicating will get heavy as one migrates from the cyber world to the real world, as the above example would entail, but if that is the case then let's all just admit it and toss the idea.

 

[HypnoToad]

It is as simple as that. Disprove the insults and they simply won't come.

We actually need to disprove that creationists are charlatan terrorists?? Even when it's pretty obviously wrong doesn't stop them from coming.

 

[KerrMetric]

Is this true archeologist?

 

[KokoTheGorilla2]

Kokothegorilla not really Kokothegorilla???

Assyrian is slandering to Koko!

Koko so shocked and upset!

Koko can't posting image yet because crazy rule is 100 posts, but link can doing.. this is photo of Koko feelings!

And another!

Koko reporting!

http://www.cnn.com

 

[ExpatChristian]

On another note, I am not sure that people who advance a 6000 year old earth are con-artists because con-artist involves intentional action to deceive people. Often these people are brainwashed and the victims of conartists. All they are guilty of is a lack of intellectual independence and a neglect of God given faculties. The conartists include people like Ted Haggard who chases gentle old people with great minds like Dawkins off the Church property with church bouncers, all the while screaming like at Dawkins that his children did not decend from apes (meanwhile he and his henchmen are acting like a bunch of wild baboons hounding a supremely rational and gentlemenly intellectual off the grounds with physical intimidation), preaching hatred against gays while he practices it himself under the influence of meth, and teaching children that the world is 6000 years old, and that Noah really did manage to get a sample of the entire biomass of the planet, including extinct animals like dinos, on a wooden boat - when we all know that 50 aircraft carriers would not do it. Now is anything I have said libel?? Here is another test for libel idea!

 

[HypnoToad]

Now is anything I have said libel?? Here is another test for libel idea!

That creationists are brainwashed idiots? Oh, absolutely nothing wrong I can see with that. [/sarcasm]

 

[KokoTheGorilla2]

Mods, are you going to delete this post as well, or are you going to adjudicate?

Koko good gorilla but Koko nice forum is controversy thing and mods here are talking about!

http://www.christianforums.com/t5691385-creationism-rudolphhucker-07-14-2007.html

Koko don't mind, but don't kill Koko again!
Koko never break rules, but from Koko site people, only Koko get account killed here, that why me number 2!

Koko want apology!!!

 

[ExpatChristian]

That creationists are brainwashed idiots? Oh, absolutely nothing wrong I can see with that. [/sarcasm]

Well first off, I didn't say creationists. It is quite possible to hold to a sensible version of creation, in that God sets in motion the laws by which genesis unfolds (and is still unfolding). In this way, evolution is part of the revealed world of God. What you object to is not the same thing as what I said - you have set up a strawman. I challenged the 6000 year-old theory and the literal interpretation of Noah. Now can you read or not? With regard to the 6000 year old earth theory and the literal interpretation of the Noah story i.e. "the animals from the zoo went in two by two" - yep if you believe that (as an adult) then you are a brainwashed idiot and I stand by that (mods delete me if you like). Believing such is a travesty of God-given intellect and an utter embarrassment to the religion. It is like saying the world is flat. It is a case of clinical delusion in the face of overwhelmingly credible empirical evidence.