1. Comment #64597 by BAEOZ on August 21, 2007 at 1:26 am

His response is to sue Seed Media and Paul Z. Myers for "Assault, Libel, and Slander."

What a wally. Grow up man. If he put out a book pretending to be scientific, he has to expect scientists to critique it. It's how the peer review correction mechanism in science functions. If he doesn't want to be ridiculed, he mustn't publish ridiculous material as science.
Will I be sued now?

Other Comments by BAEOZ

2. Comment #64598 by nickthelight on August 21, 2007 at 1:30 am

I don't know enough about this subject to make a full contribution. But surely Seed Media and PZ Myres are simply exercising free speech? If he [Stuart Pivar] has a case, it's open season on negative reviews. How silly.

Other Comments by nickthelight

3. Comment #64600 by rokort on August 21, 2007 at 1:34 am

So someone with just ideas/hypotheses that can be easily refuted by heaps and heaps of hard data wants to find legal ground to be respected as having 'shown' an alternative explanation for a phenomenon of life.

Mmmmm, where have i heard this before and what did Judge John E. Jones III say about that one?

Other Comments by rokort

4. Comment #64604 by Dunc-uk on August 21, 2007 at 1:50 am

I can't really see anything in Myers review that looks out of the ordinary for a negative review, compared to your average restaurant review for example. As annoying as it must be to be sued by someone, I can't see how this idiot has a case.

Other Comments by Dunc-uk

5. Comment #64606 by Robert Maynard on August 21, 2007 at 1:59 am

Have a heart, PZ! Stuart Pivar is on the verge of tears! He gave you an advance copy of the book and asked you to give your thoughts; all he wanted was some kind words, and you had to turn around and rub your beard in his watery, crybaby eyes. For shame. Maybe next time you'll check beforehand if the author you're reviewing is an uppity little douchebag.
In the face of this monumental act of intellectual cowardice, I do hope you'll respond in turn, and rewrite your previously honest and scathing review to be cordial, accommodating, and entirely false.

Other Comments by Robert Maynard

6. Comment #64607 by gcdavis on August 21, 2007 at 2:03 am

Even in the litigious US this seems bizarre. The indictment: Injury - Assault, Libel, and Slander. Is Pivar just a conceited nutcase?

He seems to have the dosh to fund it himself?
http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2007/08/pseudoscience-n.html

Are there any lawyers out there, does an action like this have any chance of success?

http://www.selforganization.com/

he is in "good" company under the delusional tag at Amazon
http://www.amazon.com/rss/tag/delusional/new

Other Comments by gcdavis

7. Comment #64609 by Ian on August 21, 2007 at 2:12 am

Having read the reviews, it looks to me that Pivar has found a really public way of wasting money and publicizing the Pharyngular blog.

Certainly, on the strength these two entries I think I may become a regular reader.

PZ, if you have to start a fighting fund, don't forget to tell us here how to donate.

Other Comments by Ian

8. Comment #64621 by RascoHeldall on August 21, 2007 at 3:11 am

Er, what?!?

The review certainly doesn't pull its punches - like any honest review shouldn't - but "Assault"?! "Libel"?! "Slander"?!??!

This is INSANE.

Other Comments by RascoHeldall

9. Comment #64622 by ? on August 21, 2007 at 3:21 am

The "assault" part is the most ridiculous. What the hell does that even mean in the context of a book review?

Other Comments by ?

10. Comment #64625 by gav1970 on August 21, 2007 at 3:28 am

"This is a book suitable only for use at clown colleges, and even there, I suspect the clowns would tell us that it is impractical, nonsensical, and has no utility in their craft."


That is champagne comedy.

Other Comments by gav1970

11. Comment #64626 by Veronique on August 21, 2007 at 3:35 am

Oh PZ

This is going to waste so much of your time. The only ones that win are the solicitors.

Dear, oh dear. You have my support but that's not much, I know. You need dosh for this stuff and you are only an academic on an academic's salary - goes without saying that your funds will be severely tested in the coming months.

This is a vexacious action that you are facing. I hope it is seen that way in the courts. Try to keep your beautiful big smile on your face.

You will have an enormous support. I hope it helps.

Cheers
V

Other Comments by Veronique

12. Comment #64629 by Russell Blackford on August 21, 2007 at 3:58 am

I assume that Seed has an insurance policy that covers this sort of thing. Hopefully, the insurers will fight it tooth and nail. It's a totally unmeritorious action. The assault claim is absurd and the alleged defamation was fair comment.

Other Comments by Russell Blackford

13. Comment #64633 by Dr Benway on August 21, 2007 at 4:22 am

Assault?

Other Comments by Dr Benway

14. Comment #64634 by Johnny O on August 21, 2007 at 4:47 am

I wonder if this case sets a precedent, if RD can then sue for all the scathing reviews of TGD? Surely being called a "fundamentalist Athiest" is every bit as much "Assault, Libel, and Slander." as PZ's review is?

Personally I hope common sense will prevail and Pivar will be told to stop being a twat and write a proper book... oops, is that slander?

Other Comments by Johnny O

15. Comment #64636 by Dax on August 21, 2007 at 5:05 am

Well, crackpot Harun Yahya already ordered a Turkish court to close a couple of wordpress blogs with bad reviews on them (and it ended up blocking wordpress.com altogether). What's next: Michael Bay suing Roger and Ebert for saying that Pearl Harbor was a terrible movie?
I'm just going to walk around with court orders, handing them out to anyone who criticizes my supremacy and claim to world leadership!

Other Comments by Dax

16. Comment #64638 by Veronique on August 21, 2007 at 5:24 am

elephant, where are you when we need to know whether this action will proceed.

I know you are in the UK; do you have any understanding of US defamation law? I know it's very dodgy in Australia; very difficult to disprove and usually settled out of court, because the legal costs are so high and there's no way of second guessing the legal appeal structure. In a word, very expensive, with little guarantee of success.

Poor old PZ. What an unwanted intrusion into his life.

My heart goes out to you
V

Other Comments by Veronique

17. Comment #64639 by Solarium Solaris on August 21, 2007 at 5:25 am

In one of the links, PZ mentions that D'Arcy Thompson was not a "Darwinist" but accepted evolution. What does that mean? Isn't belief in evolution and Darwinism the same thing?

Other Comments by Solarium Solaris

18. Comment #64640 by J.C. Samuelson on August 21, 2007 at 5:25 am

First, regardless of how appealing his non-conformist ideas concerning biology might seem to some (I've read favorable and neutral reviews also - he is not a creationist, btw), Mr. Pivar is an art collector, not a scientist, and by this action demonstrates himself to be a world class thin-skinned, self-obsessed idiot.

With respect to the "Assault, Libel, Slander" charge, I suspect (though I don't know for sure) that this is simply the title or scope of the code under which Mr. Pivar intends to make his case, so this needn't mean that he alleges all three. Sometimes, related charges can be placed under the same statute and titled to reflect that.

Other Comments by J.C. Samuelson

19. Comment #64649 by Zaphod on August 21, 2007 at 6:12 am

This takes the little credibility he had after you trounced his book and flushes it down the toilet. In science(I hope) what you would do is defend your book against criticism. If he couldn't do that he could just ignore it. He might be angry and want revenge on you for destroying what he consider revolutionary ideas. Also he might just want publicity for his book and suing a prominent atheist blogger and scientist in the current marketing Zeitgeist(atheism sells) is shrewd.

Other Comments by Zaphod

20. Comment #64650 by Crazymalc on August 21, 2007 at 6:17 am

Not sure which is the stoopidest law suit is.

This one, or this $65m suit over lost pants:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/12/AR2007061201667.html

Let's hope the phrase "Breathtaking inanity" will be used for both cases

Other Comments by Crazymalc

21. Comment #64651 by bluebird on August 21, 2007 at 6:35 am

Crazymalc, yea, I thought of the 'lost pants' lawsuit, too (thanx for link). These, and other outrageous suits keep U.S. courts clogged:(

Assault: verbal attack, onslaught.

Other Comments by bluebird

22. Comment #64654 by bamboospitfire on August 21, 2007 at 6:57 am

I doubt PZ will be troubled by Pivar's claim for very long. Stating publicly that you think a book is rubbish doesn't equate to defamation of the author. For a start, I seriously doubt that anything in PZ's blogs is actually untrue.

Perhaps Pivar thinks he has a right to an unquestionable belief that his book is a seminal work of true genius...

Other Comments by bamboospitfire

23. Comment #64659 by Spartan88 on August 21, 2007 at 7:06 am

As the judge was intending to wear the suit for work I think the newspaper headline should have read,

"Judge files lawsuit over lost law suit"

Other Comments by Spartan88

24. Comment #64661 by mikecassidy on August 21, 2007 at 7:29 am

Surely the obvious reaction is to countersue. After all, the reviewer is being accused of assault,libel and slander - and if that's not grounds for an 'assault, libel and slander' suit, then what is?!

Other Comments by mikecassidy

25. Comment #64662 by hungarianelephant on August 21, 2007 at 7:51 am

V - It looks like the sort of lawsuit for which the term "frivolous and vexatious" was coined. Though to be fair, I can't access the Complaint, so that opinion is unencumbered by a full factual basis.

I will say that there's not a judge in the Anglosphere who would willingly find a book review to be libellous unless it actually lied about what the book said. Except maybe in Tennessee.

Other Comments by hungarianelephant

26. Comment #64671 by sane1 on August 21, 2007 at 8:37 am

PZ may need some funds to mount the defense and counter-suit. Is he taking donations?

Seems an absurd lawsuit! Truth is a defense, by the way. Also, I expect that publishing opinions (nasty or pleasant) about public works of art or liturature would be immune from suit.

ps. I am a lawyer. I haven't practiced in this area ever, but I have not forgotten everything I learned in law school, nor have I lost my mind.

Other Comments by sane1

27. Comment #64672 by sane1 on August 21, 2007 at 8:39 am

bluebird: Are you sure its cases like this? Maybe it is real cases where injured and wronged people are seeking redress through the courts. Got facts?

Other Comments by sane1

28. Comment #64679 by Rieux on August 21, 2007 at 9:23 am

Jim Lippard's blog has more specific facts about the Complaint filed against SEED and PZ. Link: http://tinyurl.com/yrebbm .

I've taken a look at the Complaint (the document he has filed to commence this lawsuit), too; it's eye-opening. Pivar is demanding fifteen million dollars in damages for (1) tortious interference with business relations and (2) libel.

Most interestingly, his Complaint doesn't contend that the negative review per se makes the defendants liable; he's just complaining about one phrase he says PZ used--calling Pivar "a classic crackpot." That's it. Three words; that's the entire basis of the suit.

The Complaint also brags about the reviews (good and serious ones, it implies) that Pivar says his book has received from famous scientists like Neil deGrasse Tyson, and it contends:

Plaintiff discussed the LIFECODE project on numerous occasions with Professor Stephen Jay Gould, who, until his untimely death in May 2002, was working on a refutation of the fundamentalist Darwinian theory of evolution,," [sic] a position of scientific orthodoxy that LIFECODE questions.

[...]

Because Defendant Myers' defamation of Plaintiff has been disseminated widely throughout the world, his remarks were also likely and possibly intended to hold the Plaintiff up to ridicule in his business relationships as an industrialist, Plaintiff's social relationships and in his activities as a philanthropist

Thus $15 million in damages, apparently.

The document also (and necessarily, for the tort alleged) avers that Myers' "classic crackpot" line was

made with actual malice ... fully knowing that statement to be false as a statement of fact and in reckless disregard of the truth about Plaintiff because Myer's [sic] knew full well, the time [sic] of publishing his defamatory statement that no scientist holding the international reputation of any of Hazen, Sasselov, Goodwin or Tyson would endorse or review the work of a crackpot.

I'm sort of speechless.

Other Comments by Rieux

29. Comment #64688 by sane1 on August 21, 2007 at 10:19 am

JC Samuelson: you said:

With respect to the "Assault, Libel, Slander" charge, I suspect (though I don't know for sure) that this is simply the title or scope of the code under which Mr. Pivar intends to make his case, so this needn't mean that he alleges all three. Sometimes, related charges can be placed under the same statute and titled to reflect that.

I'd be surprised if he is suing under a statute, rather than common law. I think you may be off base, but I have not read the complaint.

EDIT: Just saw Rieux's comment. Malice is an exception to the general rule that you can express your opinions about (1) things (freedom of speech) especially works of art and literature, and (2) those presenting the works into the public realm.

Other Comments by sane1

30. Comment #64697 by Robert Maynard on August 21, 2007 at 11:19 am

"[N]o scientist holding the international reputation of any of Hazen, Sasselov, Goodwin or Tyson would endorse or review the work of a crackpot."

For those who don't actively read Pharyngula, and didn't see the funny story about some of Pivar's "endorsements", check out this short entry:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/07/a_little_more_on_lifecode.php

I never looked into what Sasselov and Goodwin said, but I think it's fairly safe to guess his endorsements are lukewarm at best.

Reading the actual wording of complaints always makes me more nervous than the mere idea of a frivolous lawsuit, because when you're staring at a looming edifice of careful legalese it's easy to imagine what might happen when the particulars of a situation are fed through its sharpened, labyrinthine machinery.
What's a good strategy? Play down Pharyngula's readership, and thus its ability to actually damage Pivar's reputation? Or demonstrate that Pivar is not endorsed by scientists, and is, as a matter of public-goddamn-record, a crackpot?

In any case, I too would be happy to be a drop in the bucket if PZ (or Seed, for that matter) needed some help dealing with the costs of this nonsense.

Other Comments by Robert Maynard

31. Comment #64698 by frikkenkids on August 21, 2007 at 11:20 am

Apparently Stuart Pivar is a graduate of the Uri Geller School of Responding to Negative Criticism.

Other Comments by frikkenkids

32. Comment #64702 by Icculus on August 21, 2007 at 11:56 am

Truth is a defense to defamation, but there is an exception for malice, so that's why the complaint states that PZ maliciously used the phrase crackpot. Malice is pretty hard to prove though, the complaint only makes note of PZ describing himself as "insensitive." Granted, more may come out of the discovery phase.

I also thought it was odd that the complaint cited a case in Mississippi where using "crackpot" was slanderous per se. This is in NY federal court, and since this is a matter of state law, chances are NY state law will apply, though I'm not up on my NY choice of law statutes. At any rate, I don't see how a federal judge in NY is going to care much about an intermediate appeals decision from Mississippi.

As for PZ counterclaiming for defamation, he would have a hard time doing so. I'm not sure this suit will really tarnish his reputation, if anything his blog is going to get some nice free media out of it. Also, I don't imagine his honest appraisal of a book will damage his career as a professor. His one matter of recourse would possibly be Rule 11 sanctions against the plaintiff and plaintiff's counsel, but those are at best hard to get.

Welcome to the Litigious States of America!

Other Comments by Icculus

33. Comment #64704 by Icculus on August 21, 2007 at 12:00 pm

As to the use of the "Assault, Libel, and Slander" moniker for the complaint, that's just meant to refer to the tortious nature of the suit. In Federal Court pleading, the plaintiff need only make a general reference to the body of law invoked; the particulars come out later in the trial timeline. The facts the plaintiff has pleaded lend only to a defamation cause of action and not the common law Assault cause of action. It is just one complaint but he is seeking multiple remedies: declaratory relief, an injunction, and, of course, money.

Other Comments by Icculus

34. Comment #64737 by Pallinn on August 21, 2007 at 2:21 pm

Hell, I'm only starting my third year in law school... but if Pivar actually wins this thing I'm specializing in defamation cases, moving to the States and making a damn fortune!

It's not that I'm not grateful to the crackpot for providing work for us poor, struggling lawyers, but suing for a bad review?!? Has the man read a single restaurant review in his whole life? I've been damn near brought to tears on behalf of those restaurant owners, Myers' review doesn't really compare.

Other Comments by Pallinn

35. Comment #64766 by Rieux on August 21, 2007 at 5:53 pm

if Pivar actually wins this thing I'm specializing in defamation cases, moving to the States and making a damn fortune!

Don't worry. Or, er, get your hopes up. Or whatever. Pivar's going to lose this, and lose big.

Peter Irons, a litigator who specializes in defamation cases, has a comment up on The Panda's Thumb ( http://tinyurl.com/yuofc4 , seventh comment from the top) that analyzes the complaint and mentions some shocking admissions that Irons elicited from Pivar's lawyer.

I'm a U.S. litigator too, though I have vastly less expertise in defamation law than Irons does. I'll take his word for it that the only thing PZ and SEED have to worry about is a fair amount of (1) bother and (2) attorney's fees--though, as Irons explains, they've got a shot at recouping the latter from Pivar.

Other Comments by Rieux

36. Comment #64771 by Rieux on August 21, 2007 at 6:58 pm

In the interest of staving off the "chilling effect" (and daring this kook to sue the entire blogosphere), would it make any sense to engineer an "I'm Spartacus" movement, in which several hundred bloggers post on our sites that, for the reasons PZ has set forth, we too believe that Stuart Pivar is a classic crackpot?

Or would that give Pivar and his stupid book more publicity than they deserve?

Other Comments by Rieux

37. Comment #64773 by sane1 on August 21, 2007 at 7:14 pm

Rieux: That would make case that the review was widely read. But perhaps help the claim that it is true that he is a crackpot.

Brialliant idea, either way - the man should be held up to riducule for the stupid lawsuit, if nothing else. So here goes:

Pivar is a litigoius crackpot.

Other Comments by sane1

38. Comment #64775 by Dr Benway on August 21, 2007 at 7:18 pm

Attorney Little composed and signed the filing, and served as notary for Pivar on that same filing: http://www.overlawyered.com/files/pivar/complaint.pdf

Is this kosher? I thought the notary couldn't be a signatory on the document.

As I understand, Federal Court is all about the rules. Tiny shit can get stuff thrown out.

Other Comments by Dr Benway

39. Comment #64907 by epeeist on August 22, 2007 at 9:43 am

It made it on to Slashdot - http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/08/22/1243209

Not the most rational of sites, but it has a huge readership.

Other Comments by epeeist

40. Comment #65063 by Yorker on August 22, 2007 at 7:41 pm

Pivar probably knows he'll lose, perhaps his aim is just to get as much publicity and therefore book sales, as possible. There are people whose low self-respect allows this crap.

Other Comments by Yorker

41. Comment #65069 by LeeLeeOne on August 22, 2007 at 8:05 pm

Pivar is a litigious crackpot. Pivar is a litigious crackpot. Pivar is a litigious crackpot. Pivar is a litigious crackpot. Pivar is a litigious crackpot. Pivar is a litigious crackpot. Pivar is a litigious crackpot. Pivar is a litigious crackpot. Pivar is a litigious crackpot.

I suppose this does not "count."

So how many times can I get sued?

ONLY once?!!

dammit, dammit, dammit....

Other Comments by LeeLeeOne