Comment Libel is still libel (Score 1) 588
The reason for the suit, it would appear, is that the blogger has attacked the authors credentials and made claims that:
1. "[The author is] a flake"
2. "his approaches are unscientific and nonsensical"
3. "The work is ... out of touch with reality and evidence and scientific explanations"
These sort of accusations can harm the author's reputation as a scientific writer, and, as such, it could be libel. If his accusations are true, and the author's approaches are "unscientific and nonsensical", then the blogger will be exhonorated. However if they are untrue, then the blogger should be held accountable for the damage he has caused.
Internet authors and bloggers have a tendency to think that libel laws don't apply to them, and that they are free to spout any opinion that they want. Lawsuits like this just serve as a reminder that we are held accountable for what we say and whom we accuse - even on the internet.
1. "[The author is] a flake"
2. "his approaches are unscientific and nonsensical"
3. "The work is
These sort of accusations can harm the author's reputation as a scientific writer, and, as such, it could be libel. If his accusations are true, and the author's approaches are "unscientific and nonsensical", then the blogger will be exhonorated. However if they are untrue, then the blogger should be held accountable for the damage he has caused.
Internet authors and bloggers have a tendency to think that libel laws don't apply to them, and that they are free to spout any opinion that they want. Lawsuits like this just serve as a reminder that we are held accountable for what we say and whom we accuse - even on the internet.
