In regards to our coverage of the Hailey study, here is what Utah State University is saying (From The Deseret News):
Critics who have posted comments on Internet “blog” sites – the arena where doubt was first cast about the documents CBS obtained – are calling Hailey a “fraud,” alleging his findings are politically motivated and that other USU officials may have somehow guided his study.
Now that Hailey and the school are under fire for the research, the plan is to respond aggressively through the media, according to John DeVilbiss, USU director of public relations and marketing.
“We want to make it right for both the professor and the university,” DeVilbiss said. He called critics of Hailey “mean-spirited,” adding that in the end the controversy will reflect “positively” on the institution. “It is not a political issue, it is an academic one.”
Without a request for an interview, USU President Kermit Hall called the Desert Morning News with his own take on the situation.
“Whoever it is,” Hall said of the e-mails, “is clearly trying to intimidate the university and trying to intimidate Professor Hailey.”
Hall called Hailey’s research “legitimate” and said the professor has every right to engage in and publicize the research.
“There’s been an effort to suggest that the administration put him up to this – the answer to that is, ‘wrong,'” Hall added. “There’s a suggestion that the purpose of his work is to join some kind of political action – that’s wrong.”
Hall called the blogging and e-mails the “worst kind of smear” against academic research and the opportunity for academics to share their research within academe and with the “wider” public.For the record, I was not contacted by the Deseret News for this article.
Our response is forthcoming, but I’m glad to note the support of Dr. Joseph Newcomer, whose detailed findings on the CBS memos are still the gold standard of academic research on the subject. I spoke with Dr. Newcomer at length today and he has nothing but high praise for the work done here at Wizbang (and elsewhere) on the Hailey report. As a peer of Dr. Hailey’s, he is amazed at the shoddiness of the work and has serious issues with the methods employed and conclusions reached. Expect additional criticism of Dr. Hailey and USU from Dr. Newcomer in the coming days.
PS – I realize comparing Hailey and Newcomer as peers does Dr. Newcomer a great disservice…
Final comment:
To show you just how clueless the USU adminstration is about this issue, when the fit hit the shan their first response was to run to their allies in the Dead Tree Media.
That’s like bringing nail clippers to a gunfight.
Hey Kevin and Paul, do you guys need a lawyer? I can recommend a few good ones who handle defamation cases, but they don’t work cheap. You do have a lot of money to defend a libel case, right?
Hey Mithras, can the bullshit. Truth is an absolute defense in a defamation case. Additionally, if sued, Kevin and Paul could cross complaint both Hailey and the deep pockets USU. Now, hurry back to moonbat land where you belong.
Yeah, but you guys don’t have truth on your side. Cease and desist is the first out otherwise it can get expensive.
Julie, Mithras might be gloating — prematurely — but it’s still a good question, and I hope Kevin and Paul are preparing for that possibility.
I think that USU would be ill-advised to let such a proceeding go forward… but as doctors all know, the cost of a *successful* defense is still substantial. You can “win”… and still lose.
If and When Dr. Hailey files, I would hope that some of our blogging lawyers would consider taking the case… AND I would hope that if funds became an issue, we’d all hit the tip jars, and keep hitting them.
Oh, and that we’d all blog *hard* on the attempts of Dr. Hailey to hide what he did behind the cloud of a libel suit.
This could be a “make or break” case; IF Hailey is successful in silencing this site, by threat or by judgment, then others who have been exposed by bloggers will follow suit.
I will be watching this with GREAT interest.
DeDoc: Mithras was not asking a question but making a statement with the intent to intimidate. If he wants to ask a question, I suggest he direct it at USU and Hailey, because in the long run it is going to cost them the most money. Let them worry about it.
mark y1: You want truth? I’ll give you truth: Hailey’s research is a bunch of crap. So, sue me.
Hmm…lawyers who would be willing to defend bloggers, perhaps at reduced rate or even pro bono…
I don’t know, but between Powerline, Volokh Conspiracy, Instapundit, Bainbridge, and Pavel there’s a dozen top-notch legal guns right there. John Hinderaker (Powerline) even specializes in First Amendment litigation.
And should any blogger find themselves in that situation, all they need do is set up the tip jar, as previously mentioned.
And I agree with Julie – my read of the previous comments is that they were veiled threats, not friendly advice.
the previous comments is that they were veiled threats, not friendly advice.
Since I am neither Professor Haily nor employed by the university, I can’t make threats. However, I can give you some unfriendly, but very heart-felt advice: just because it’s the internet doesn’t mean the law does not apply to you.
In the past, other bloggers have learned that threats communicated electronically violate federal criminal law. And by now the operators of this site have probably learned that maliciously false statements that injure another person can be actionable as libel. Attacks on a person’s professional character or standing are generally considered defamation per se. (I especially like that one in the context of this case.) If you have not had an attorney explain these things to you already, then you better make an appointment right now.
Please note that I am not your attorney and the above does not constitute legal advice to you. Consult with your own counsel.
Mithras;
Senator John Edwards, is that you?
Mithras, the problem is first, proving damages. Remember what Olivia says in Twelfth Night, Act I, Scene V, lines 88-89.
The second problem is COLLECTING A JUDGMENT. Suppose the University sues, what property are they going to attach in order to collect a judgment? A few Maxim magazines and a couple of inflatable dolls?
Remember what Olivia says
Well, having Wizbang’s authors publicly acknowledge themselves to be “allowed fools” may be the issue. Which brings up your second point. Presumably, they have jobs; wages can be garnisheed. And money damages is one kind of judgment; injunctive relief is another. There are all kinds of things that a court can order you to do when you lose a defamation case.
Mithras, I have always thought that the phrase “allowed fool” in the line means “someone generally acknowledged to be a fool”, rather than “someone who admits that he is a fool.”
From the link provided by Exploding Head:
What you see is a professor’s research project intended for students and colleagues at Utah State to comment upon and contribute to.
Well, he was critiqued. Maybe more harshly than he is used to, but it is no different than having a student, faculty member, or any other person critique his work.
The really frightening thing is all the uproar people like you and the person that wrote that article have created. The Left likes to talk about the crushing of free speech – look in the mirror. Every criticism of the professor’s work is valid. He presented what he believes is evidence that the documents were not forged, and came to that conclusion. His evidence and his conclusion were challenged.
I hope he tries to take this to court. He’ll look foolish attempting to argue that his paper – which he posted so it could be subjected to review and criticism – was in fact reviewed and criticized.
Posted by Sean at October 4, 2004 06:01 PM
Lowell-
I have always thought that the phrase “allowed fool” in the line means “someone generally acknowledged to be a fool”
Could be; Shakespearean English is not my area of expertise. We use “allow” as “admit” today, in the sense of “I will allow that my argument rests on facts that have not been proved.”
Anyway, if it’s defamation per se, you don’t have to prove damage as an element. (You would have to prove them for the purposes of quantifying the award, although punitives are probably also available.)
Reposter-
He’ll look foolish attempting to argue that his paper – which he posted so it could be subjected to review and criticism – was in fact reviewed and criticized.
That’s irrelevant. There are legal limits on what one can say in criticism and, roughly, those limits are the laws governing assault and defamation.
Ha, ha, ha, when was the last time anyone won a libel suit in this country? Go busy yourself with more case law research, Mithras. I expect, when you post again, you’ll be quoting from the Utah law library.
Reposter-
Here are a few big cases from New York, 2003 ($700,000), California, 2002 ($250,000), Delaware, 2000 ($3 million), just on the first couple google pages.
Any other questions?
Oh, so you had your research ready. Who do you work for?
You looking for trouble, you come to the right place, as the song goes.
Here’s another yummy piece from Hailey’s own site:
Excerpt from current version of Hailey’s Bush Memo Font Study:
“In addition, I served in the U.S. military (Army) from 1963 to 1972. For five of those seven years I was an Army illustrator responsible for short run publications including memos such as those in question. Ultimately, I have a total of almost 35 years experience examining document production, including analyzing and spec
Oh, so you had your research ready.
Nah, that’s not research, that’s two minutes spent enlightening your ignorant self. I see it was wasted effort. You apparently don’t know the first thing about law or how litigation works and, if the university or Prof. Hailey decides to sue, you are in for quite a shock.
You looking for trouble, you come to the right place, as the song goes.
*snicker*
We’ll see who has the last laugh.
You apparently don’t know the first thing about law or how litigation works
Well, I do, and you most certainly don’t. Only a real idiot (YOU) would think cutting and pasting some cases and articles from the internet makes him an atty and an expert in defamation law.
Hey, since this blogger says he is a lawyer and is encouraging you all to continue in your behavior, if you lose the suit and end up owing your homes to David Hailey and USU (or your lawyers), you should look into filing suit against him for negligence… just in case. He’s a lawyer, so he’s probably got the insurance and money to cover it. You’ll be doing him a favor too… Blogging legal advice to specific people in the midst of a dispute isn’t good.
http://sayanythingblog.com/archives/004468.php
I love satire! Bush is funny…
Chase your tails! Go boy!
Go for it! Woof! Woof!
Not my website, but sure is peculiar!
http://www.bettybowers.com/isbushgay.html