Heartland Institute Threatens To Sue Anyone Who Comments On Leaked Documents 517
Layzej writes "Bloggers around the world have been commenting on recently leaked Heartland Institute documents that reveal their internal strategies to discredit climate science. These posters are now under threat of legal action. According to the Heartland Institute 'the individuals who have commented so far on these documents did not wait for Heartland to confirm or deny the authenticity of the documents. We believe their actions constitute civil and possibly criminal offenses for which we plan to pursue charges and collect payment for damages'"
what does waiting have to do with anything? (Score:5, Interesting)
If the documents are false they were talking about someone else and it's good for them in the long run because they'll have lots of independents to point to and say "these people are the cause of all this!" But if they are real then they're only going to make it look like they're trying to bury the truth (which would, in fact, be the case) and it can only go against them.
Re:what does waiting have to do with anything? (Score:5, Insightful)
They seem to be a bit confused about the authenticity of the documents:
"Therefore, the authenticity of those documents has not been confirmed." (in bold none the less)
then at the bottom:
"How did this happen? The stolen documents were obtained by an unknown person who fraudulently assumed the identity of a Heartland board member and persuaded a staff member here to “re-send” board materials to a new email address."
Err so they are your documents but you cannot confirm that they are your documents?
Re:what does waiting have to do with anything? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:what does waiting have to do with anything? (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course they claim one is faked. It's so damaging to them they don't have any other means of defence other than to claim fake. We can expect them to say it's faked either way.
Whether it actually is faked or not is another matter. There's no evidence one way or the other. But it being in a bundle with genuine documents does put the balance of probabilities on it also being genuine.
Re:what does waiting have to do with anything? (Score:5, Insightful)
"But it being in a bundle with genuine documents does put the balance of probabilities on it also being genuine." No, it doesn't. We know the person who obtained whatever genuine documents are there is dishonest and has an agenda.* How does the "balance of probabilities" say that this person didn't do something else dishonest to further his agenda? We have no knowledge on this point one way or the other.
*I know some people say the same thing about the institute itself. Which is why I have no idea whether that document is fake or not.
Re:what does waiting have to do with anything? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:what does waiting have to do with anything? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:what does waiting have to do with anything? (Score:5, Insightful)
You've got it exactly backwards. Remember the Dan Rather memo? When that came out, everybody was talking about the forgery, and nobody was talking about the rich frat boy who used his family connections to weasel out of military service.
I hope the same thing doesn't happen here. The Heartlanders are doing real and lasting damage, the last thing we need is to give them more ammo.
Re:what does waiting have to do with anything? (Score:5, Insightful)
I find it fascinating that this hacking has prompted a discussion about truth, objectivity and facts.
Perhaps we (the public) should apply these new-found reasoning skills to the science of climate change, and ignore some of the ad hominems (and other absurdities) that have been directed against climate scientists by organisations such as Heartland.
Re:what does waiting have to do with anything? (Score:5, Insightful)
No, the real evidence that this is all genuine stuff is how freaked-out and panicked this philistine think-tank is over the public revelation of their dishonest agenda.
Fuck them.
Re:what does waiting have to do with anything? (Score:4, Insightful)
How would the prospective forger have known about Anthony Watt's involvement in the Expanded Climate Communications? This is accurate information and the only possible source for it was the leaked strategy memo. Only somebody working with the Heartland institute could have had the necessary information to "fake" that memo. It could not have been an invention of unscrupulous activists as Heartland claims.
Re:what does waiting have to do with anything? (Score:4, Funny)
Yes, but when have the Protocols of the Elders of Zion ever actually predicted anything?
Just don't ask the same question about climate models.
Re:what does waiting have to do with anything? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:what does waiting have to do with anything? (Score:5, Insightful)
> We know the person who obtained whatever genuine documents ..
> are there is dishonest and has an agenda.*
> *I know some people say the same thing about the institute itself.
"some people say"?? it's their entire reason for existence and they've never tried particularly hard to hide it!
some people also say the pope is catholic.. there is a time for
choosing your words carefully, and there are other times to call
a spade a spade.
Re:what does waiting have to do with anything? (Score:5, Insightful)
We know the person who obtained whatever genuine documents are there is dishonest and has an agenda.
This statement, on it's own, impinges on the authenticity of every whistleblower, ever.
Of course, for the aggrieved party, every person who betrays confidences is dishonest and has an agenda. It remains then, for the 3rd party observer, to determine if that evaluation holds up against the scrutiny of the agenda of the aggrieved.
Frankly, "If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, we have at least to consider the possibility that we have a small aquatic bird of the family anatidae on our hands."
Re:what does waiting have to do with anything? (Score:5, Informative)
And herein lies the problem with your argument: "According to Heartland"
You are assuming that Heartland has no stake in this game and of course would also tell the truth. At this point, you can't assume any of these are invalid, or valid given that the only folks talking are those with the documents, and those that lost them.
Re:what does waiting have to do with anything? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:what does waiting have to do with anything? (Score:4, Informative)
In short, it really looks like someone got a bunch of real documents and then threw something in to sex it up a bit. The problem for them is that they did it so damned badly. The problem for Heartland is that they're acting like dicks toward a lot of people, when they should be upending heaven and hell to find the memo forger and crucifying him for libel.
Re:what does waiting have to do with anything? (Score:4, Interesting)
There is actually a pretty significant amount of evidence it's faked. Every document in the bundle except the strategy memo and an IRS document was printed to PDF in the central time zone. The IRS document was printed to PDF in GMT-4. The strategy memo was scanned in with an Epson scanner to a PDF by someone in the Pacific time zone. All documents except the strategy memo and a board directory were printed to PDF on January 16, the day before a board meeting. The board directory was printed January 25. The strategy memo was created at 3:41 PM on February 13. If you want more, read over here [theatlantic.com].
How do these dates, time zones and scanner types recorded in the PDFs suggest that some of these docs are fakes and some are original? Are you suggesting that the time zone discrepancy indicates that?
Re:what does waiting have to do with anything? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:what does waiting have to do with anything? (Score:5, Insightful)
Or perhaps they were leaked at different times (Score:5, Interesting)
Another plausible scenario is that that one document was leaked first, in the form of a paper copy (or scan of one), and it was the information of that document that inspired those who received it to seek further corroborative evidence via "social engineering."
Re:Or perhaps they were leaked at different times (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:what does waiting have to do with anything? (Score:5, Interesting)
Of all the people in the world who could have provided an analysis that it's a fake, it's the wife of a fellow in the Koch Foundation. The Heartland Institute's biggest donor.
And then all the evidence she gives isn't that it's a fake, but only that the author is different from the other documents. And that the person that wrote it did so later than the other documents and referring back to them. But Heartland is a lobbyist organisation with multiple employees spread out over America, so none of that is evidence of a fake.
It's basically someone with the objective of showing it's a fake throwing everything at it. All of it sounds plausible, but none of it actually logically stands up as evidence of a fake.
Re:what does waiting have to do with anything? (Score:4, Interesting)
Incidentally, as for Koch being "[t]he Heartland Institute's biggest donor", go check out their response over here [desmogblog.com], where they claim (and Greenpeace's records confirm) that they gave $25k to Heartland in 2011 for health care research, not global warming, and that this was the first donation they had made since 1999. They do have one very large anonymous donor, and if you have some evidence identifying who that is I'd for one find it interesting.
If you really care about fixing global warming rather than Team Red/Team Blue, you're going to need to engage people on both sides of the political spectrum. Turning everything into a massive conspiracy theory is not going to help you do this.
Re:what does waiting have to do with anything? (Score:5, Insightful)
"Turning everything into a massive conspiracy theory is not going to help you do this."
One side promotes the idea that there has been a massive global conspiracy by scientists, across a number of disciplines and organizations, lasting over decades, to lie about a central scientific result in their field. There is no sensible organizational backing or motivation to this.
Scientists try to "engage people" by doing as good science as they can and working hard over decades to produce consensus estimates of the best known status from high-quality experimental and theoretical research, and work to explain it in (highly educated) laymens' terms as well as they can.
The other side yells that they're lying scumbags out to attack freedom.
The other side promotes the idea that there is a small political conspiracy to gain by people who have previously been known to engage in political conspiracies of a a similar nature. There is a well known organizational consistency and economic motivation to this.
Re:what does waiting have to do with anything? (Score:5, Insightful)
If I had mod points to give you'd get a +1 Insightful. The idea that so many scientists across so many disciplines from around the world could maintain such a conspiracy for so long is absurd. Do people really believe the so many scientists are willing to risk their scientific reputations for political aims? Anyone who proves them wrong would destroy them and would be up for a Nobel Prize.
No real evidence that they are forged. (Score:5, Insightful)
There is actually a pretty significant amount of evidence it's faked. ...
No, what you listed is merely evidence that the pdfs were not all produced at the same time.
This is interesting, but has no relevance to whether it's faked or not. There is no reason that real documents might not have been pdf'd at different times.
...The problem for Heartland is that they're acting like dicks toward a lot of people, when they should be upending heaven and hell to find the [putative] memo forger and crucifying him for libel.
Which brings up an interesting question. When somebody broke into the CRU and published (what turned out to be a highly edited selection of) stolen e-mail, the response of "let's upend heaven and hell to find the thieves" did not seem to be high on anybody's priority list. So, apparently, it's only an important crime if you steal documents from people denying the science?
Re:what does waiting have to do with anything? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Thankfully, it can be proven! (Score:5, Interesting)
Unfortunately, the thief was apparently smart enough to photocopy the documents and then pass them through a filter. Poof, no yellow dots.
The problem for Heartland is these guys got caught with their pants down and revealed they have quite a few less inches than they were claiming.
Re:what does waiting have to do with anything? (Score:5, Informative)
Well, let's see. Except for the one document, ever single one is a professionally designed print to pdf document with creation dates in early and mid January and which has a timecode of CST the region where Heartland has it's main offices. The "memo" is a poorly scanned document that reads like a 8th grader's "how to talk like a supervillain" letter with plenty of copypasta and an outright falsehood. Namely that the Koch brother's donation was concerned with climate change. Given that the donation code was HCN and that Bayer AG and multiple other pharma and medical companies also have the same donation code this is unlikely to say the least. Then there's the fact that the memo was scanned in Februray with a timecode of PST. All in all, a shittastic smear job.
Re:what does waiting have to do with anything? (Score:5, Insightful)
The first thing a defendant's lawyer is going to do is subpoena a true copy of the originals. Then the cat will be out of the BAG for sure.
Re:what does waiting have to do with anything? (Score:4, Insightful)
The first thing a defendant's lawyer is going to do is subpoena a true copy of the originals. Then the cat will be out of the BAG for sure.
Oopsy, we lost it. Here's a copy.....
Re:what does waiting have to do with anything? (Score:5, Insightful)
The first thing a defendant's lawyer is going to do is subpoena a true copy of the originals. Then the cat will be out of the BAG for sure.
Why were you the first one to post on this, so low in the chain?!! That was the FIRST thought in my head, "A subpoena ought to clear that up in about a week!" I wish we could mod up thread as well as points!
Re: (Score:3)
It's tough for geeks with their exclusive-or thinking to wrap their minds around that, ...
Oh, c'mon; any true geek would default "or" to inclusive-or. It's only in common speech that "or" usually means exclusive-or. In mathematics and most technical fields, inclusive-or is the default interpretation of "or". Any true geek would understand this.
Actually, there are a fair number of geek jokes based on the difference between the two ors, generally based on a misunderstanding that uses inclusive-or when exclusive-or was correct. Probably the simplest family of such jokes is about a geek who a
Re:what does waiting have to do with anything? (Score:5, Insightful)
The innocent have nothing to fear, yes, I know that.
If they fear commenting on these documents to such a degree, I have to ask why, All they have to do is never confirm the documents (or wait a few months, on a Friday, at midnight). So there is an easy route of censorship there.
Second, the whole climate change is bunk movement's claim is that politics is being played, and you can't trust the results saying it is happening. We have a memo here implying that politics might be being played, and research/motives to be questioned. Revealing this is grounds for being sued.
Third, lawsuits potentially coming? Even ignoring the chilling effect, do we really need to reach that stage of escalation int his subject where every time someone speaks for one side the other side begins suing?
They are all attacking the messengers and trying to cease the message. They have yet to put out anything to show these are false. Just silencing the people trying to talk about this.
Re:what does waiting have to do with anything? (Score:5, Insightful)
The innocent have nothing to fear, yes, I know that.
Actually, what the innocent still have to fear is HI acting like every other right wing shill group. They have two things on their side: money and lawyers. They can bankrupt an innocent person through the act of barratry [thefreedictionary.com] and as a corrupt right wing shill group whose previous exploits involve funding faked studies to do things like claim cigarette smoke isn't dangerous, they've already shown that they have no moral compass stopping them from doing so.
If they fear commenting on these documents to such a degree, I have to ask why,
See above. If they get exposed so blatantly, they might have to fold. And the people writing for them might have to find real work rather than being right wing shills.
Second, the whole climate change is bunk movement's claim is that politics is being played, and you can't trust the results saying it is happening. We have a memo here implying that politics might be being played, and research/motives to be questioned. Revealing this is grounds for being sued.
Third, lawsuits potentially coming? Even ignoring the chilling effect, do we really need to reach that stage of escalation int his subject where every time someone speaks for one side the other side begins suing?
They are all attacking the messengers and trying to cease the message. They have yet to put out anything to show these are false. Just silencing the people trying to talk about this.
Right wing shillery RELIES on two things: the echo chamber and the chilling effect. Ever noticed how a Fox News viewer screams about the "liberal media" nonstop? It's because if they ever listened to both sides, they'd realize their side's argument is more full of holes than a loaf of aged swiss cheese.
Re:what does waiting have to do with anything? (Score:5, Interesting)
You know, when you say, "They both do it, and they're both the same", you deny what's going on in this story and in all politics across the nation.
You're responding to the news of a killing spree by saying, "Well, the other side has used spitballs to annoy people", so they're murderers, too.
"They" and "Them" was not an invention of the Left in America. Demonization of the "Other" was purely the Right's innovation. If you go over the history of the US since WWII, you'll find that the Left's approach has been, "Let's get as many people on board as possible" and the Right's approach has been, "We're being victimized by THEM".
Even in the area of racism, which was a huge problem for the Democratic Party in the post-war era, you'll find a steady effort by the Democrats to make the party as uncomfortable for racists as possible, so that by the time a black man was the head of the party, the racists had left. And just guess where they all went. When all those racists left the Democratic Party, which party do you think they went to? You think they all became Libertarians? You think they all started voting for the Green ticket?
Even so, if you look at tip of the spear of the Left in America currently, the Occupy Movement, there is still an effort to invite and include the tea party and disaffected poor white working class people (which has been surprisingly effective, by the way). How inviting were the Tea Party to people who were pro-choice or pro-union or pro gay marriage. Even though the Tea Party was ostensibly focused singularly on government spending, there was a whole list of exclusionary issues with which one had to agree with them before they'd even consider you an American, much less "one of them".
From Edmund Burke on, the Right has been purely reactionary. It's what's given them their amazing draw with racists, sexists, bigots. It's what makes every single right-wing talk show revel in racism, sexism and bigotry. Check out at random any right-wing talk show and listen to the callers. Listen to the hosts. There is an effort to outdo one another. If one says "Obama is a liberal" the next will say, Obama is a tyrant, the next will say he's Hitler, and the next will say he's the Antichrist (though, to be fair, "Antichrist" is usually where they run out of steam, because it's hard to top that one, which is why it's usually saved for the most horrible crimes of this President, such as showing respect to a foreign head of state).
You want to say "Oh both sides are equally horrible" you're going to have your judgment called into question, friend.
And who the fuck is "We", white man? You got a mouse in your pocket? And who are YOU and your "WE" losing your country to, exactly? The liberals? You start out decrying how someone's comments are horrible because they talk about "THEY and THEM" and then you say, "We're losing OUR country". Do you even realize that the statement, "We're losing OUR country" is the very definition of pointing a finger and blaming, "THEY and THEM"? "We're losing OUR country" has zero meaning unless there is a THEM that you are demonizing. So who the fuck are you losing YOUR country to, exactly?
Now I'm going to give you a pass, because it's Sunday and maybe you've had a rough week. But you're going to have to spend a little time thinking this over. You can come back when you've learned something.
Re:what does waiting have to do with anything? (Score:5, Interesting)
"They" and "Them" was not an invention of the Left in America. Demonization of the "Other" was purely the Right's innovation. If you go over the history of the US since WWII, you'll find that the Left's approach has been, "Let's get as many people on board as possible" and the Right's approach has been, "We're being victimized by THEM".
At the risk of Godwinning the thread... the right wing got round to starting this not very long after a war involving Germany, Italy, and Japan was resolved... and their initial targets "just happened" to be blacks, jews, and "communists." [wikipedia.org] Anyone else have a sneaking hunch whose plan they were thinking had worked so well in Europe for taking power?
Even so, if you look at tip of the spear of the Left in America currently, the Occupy Movement, there is still an effort to invite and include the tea party and disaffected poor white working class people (which has been surprisingly effective, by the way). How inviting were the Tea Party to people who were pro-choice or pro-union or pro gay marriage.
Dunno about those groups, but I've gone to a couple events (4th of July celebrations last year) that were swarming with Tea Party folks... they were busy getting drunk as shit and started shouting racist crap and spitting at a friend of mine who's latino, despite the fact that my friend's family presence in the USA predates the entrance of Texas into the country.
If one says "Obama is a liberal" the next will say, Obama is a tyrant, the next will say he's Hitler, and the next will say he's the Antichrist (though, to be fair, "Antichrist" is usually where they run out of steam, because it's hard to top that one
Actually, that's about the time that the dumbasses start insinuating Obama's either a muslim, or start calling him a "marxist socialist."
And who the fuck is "We", white man? You got a mouse in your pocket? And who are YOU and your "WE" losing your country to, exactly? The liberals? You start out decrying how someone's comments are horrible because they talk about "THEY and THEM" and then you say, "We're losing OUR country". Do you even realize that the statement, "We're losing OUR country" is the very definition of pointing a finger and blaming, "THEY and THEM"? "We're losing OUR country" has zero meaning unless there is a THEM that you are demonizing. So who the fuck are you losing YOUR country to, exactly?
Apparently, Mr. Racist Redneck Retard is losing "his" country to actual Americans...
Re: (Score:3)
Are they going to prosecute first posters?
Re: (Score:3)
That's true to a point, but did you know most people still believe "Climategate" was the truth and still is? That's the problem. Once the kind of lies Heartland put out circulated, that was that. When the truth came out about Climategate, no one was interested in publishing the truth... there's no zip, pop or bang in reporting that, after all, and without the zip, pop or bang, you can't sell breakfast cereal advertising.
What Heartland seeks to prevent is... well... exactly the effect they launched agains
Re: (Score:3)
Re:what does waiting have to do with anything? (Score:5, Informative)
"Truth is a complete defence against defamation." And you know the disputed document is authentic how, exactly?
It doesn't matter whether the documents are authentic. The issue at stake is whether anyone who read the documents and commented upon them had reason to believe that their own comments were false.
"For example, the Minnesota Supreme Court has held:
We hold that a private individual may recover actual damages for a defamatory publication upon proof that the defendant knew or in the exercise of reasonable care should have known that the defamatory statement was false. The conduct of defamation defendants will be judged on whether the conduct was that of a reasonable person under the circumstances."
Since there's clearly no way to know whether any statement related to these documents is false, the commenters are clearly safe.
reputation? you never HAD one, sorry (Score:4, Insightful)
we plan to pursue charges and collect payment for damages, including damages to our reputation.
lol
you guys are fundies. your rep is what it is, memos or no memos.
enjoy your 'moment of babs', you losers.
Re:reputation? you never HAD one, sorry (Score:5, Insightful)
we plan to pursue charges and collect payment for damages, including damages to our reputation.
Translation: we're going to sue everyone we possibly can, because the papers were correct, our position is publicly indefensible, and the only resource we have is lawyers and money to threaten people with like mafia leg-breakers.
This from the same money-laundering front group (I call them this as they REFUSE to disclose their donor list) who commissioned bogus "studies" to try to claim cigarette smoke isn't dangerous.
Re:reputation? you never HAD one, sorry (Score:5, Funny)
When you have the law in your favor, bang on the law,
When you have the facts in your favor, bang on the facts,
When you have neither the law nor the facts in your favor, bang on the table.
Re:reputation? you never HAD one, sorry (Score:5, Insightful)
Right wing followup:
When you have neither the law, nor the facts, nor the table in your favor, get a lawyer to hold a gun to someone's back and tell your opponent to shut up or you'll bankrupt them in legal fees defending yourself anyways.
This is the problem of the current state of US law. It doesn't MATTER if you have the law in your favor, or the facts in your favor, provided the other side has enough money to make you waste all of yours defending yourself in court against spurious motions and threats.
Re:reputation? you never HAD one, sorry (Score:4, Insightful)
Sort of how this billionaire supporter of Romney does it when papers or websites investigate him: http://www.salon.com/2012/02/19/billionaire_romney_donor_uses_threats_to_silence_critics/singleton/ [salon.com]
What, no comments? (Score:5, Funny)
Interestingly (Score:5, Funny)
Their view of law is very similar to their view of science.
Streissand (Score:5, Funny)
Hiring Barbara Streissand as a legal consultant was not their smartest move.
Re:Streissand (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe the Streisand Effect will get more eyeballs on their sites?
They claim that their message is being suppressed by the forces of evil anyway. Their target audience might just see the leaks as the work of the conspiracy of freedom haters and lap up the message.
Re:Streissand (Score:5, Informative)
Their target audience might just see the leaks as the work of the conspiracy of freedom haters and lap up the message.
Of course they will. The very same people that were so pleased that the CRU email server was hacked into in the so called "Climategate" affair. That said how great it was that this information was now in the public domain.
Cretins.
authenticity confirmed (Score:5, Insightful)
well I guess that confirms the authenticity now
Re:authenticity confirmed (Score:4, Informative)
Many of the documents seem to be genuine, but the "smoking gun" document that everyone is quoting looks like a fake. This possibility seems to have been raised first here on Slashdot by eldavojohn [slashdot.org], and Megan McArdle of The Atlantic has written extensively about it. [theatlantic.com]
The Heartland people are making themselves look bad with these silly threats, though, which will lose them the sympathy they should get as victims of a forgery-based smear job.
Re:authenticity confirmed (Score:5, Informative)
Megan McArdle? Really?
Just what does an economics writer who knows nothing about either economics or simple math have to do with document authentication?
Re:authenticity confirmed (Score:5, Insightful)
If the documents made the left look bad instead of the right everyone would be falling over themselves to claim that Internet people with no professional training who figured out the documents were fake were doing the people a valuable service and a prime example of how the Internet empowered the common man.
There certainly have been cases in the past where fake documents were exposed by people on the Internet with no professional training. Remember Dan Rather's Killian documents? (Another case where the documents made the right look bad, but turned out to be fabricated). It wasn't the mass media that exposed those--it was guys on the Internet.
Under what pretense ? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Under what pretense ? (Score:5, Insightful)
I guess they're hoping that their opponents are as gullible as their supporters.
Hypocrisy at its finest (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Hypocrisy at its finest (Score:5, Insightful)
I can't sort out what part of the legal system they plan on using. If you can find the leak, then certainly you can persue them criminally and civilly. Perhaps if it's being reproduced word for word on websites, then you can probably go for copyright infringement, though by now the document has spread to the four corners of the planet and it's far past the point when that's really a meaningful option. As to suing people that comment on the document, that's patently absurd. In most Western countries there are protections on that sort of speech. I guess you could try to claim libellous conduct, but by now tens of thousands of people have likely commented on it, and the idea that you can actually bring any fraction of them into court is highly unlikely, and that's not even talking about the odds of conviction (pretty low in the US, that's for sure).
I've seen some pretty pathetic legal threats, but this more resembles the kind of nonsense I used to see on some Internet forums where some nasty little prick, when cornered, would make some vague legal threat. Might as well threaten that Jesus will come down and stomp on your balls.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
That would only work if they could prove the documents were indeed forgeries....
For some reason, Wilde vs Queensberry comes to mind here.
Re: (Score:3)
In most Western countries there are protections on that sort of speech.
All you need to do is find one jurisdiction where there aren't. For the English language, the jurisdiction of choice is England and Wales. It's called "libel tourism [wikipedia.org]."
Re: (Score:3)
The most fascinating thing about this is the general hypocrisy involved. Whenever the whole "ClimateGate" matter occurred, Heartland was at the front of trumpeting the documents from that (which incidentally turned out to be utterly benign), with zero concern about the ethics of taking confidential documents from other people using hacking. Yet now, when the same thing happens to them, they use every bit of the legal system to go after not just the people who actually did do it but anyone who is then commenting or reproducing the documents. Really charming behavior.
You want to see even greater hypocrisy? Go to the Heartland Institute site and look up their articles on Tort Reform. Hypocrisy indeed!
Scientology (Score:4, Insightful)
Because it worked so well for Scientology [suburbia.net].Yeah, I can't see this going wrong in any way at all.
Pants on fire. (Score:4, Funny)
The best way to win in the court room is to prove a witness has a history of lying. This begs the question, "Who from Heartland could be a credible witness"?
Re:Pants on fire. (Score:5, Informative)
Although I agree with your sentiments wholeheartedly I don't think 'begs the question' [wikipedia.org] means what you think it means
Re: (Score:3)
Gee, this was never a problem for "Climategate" (Score:5, Insightful)
The Heartland Institute didn't find it necessary for following this protocol for commenting on leaked documents when it came to Climategate [heartland.org].
Re:Gee, this was never a problem for "Climategate" (Score:5, Insightful)
That was my first thought exactly. One rule and set of ethics for them, another set for everyone else and any time the spotlight is on them it's "persecution".
Shares a lot in common with the way religious fundamentalists operate, too. "You're oppressing my religious freedom by not allowing me to force my beliefs on others! That's unfair!"
the most logical /. response is to organize... (Score:3)
shakespeare's answer: (Score:3)
"methinks the lady doth protest too much"
if the documents were fake, they wouldn't elicit such a strong reaction. therefore, the documents are real
Re: (Score:3)
By your reasoning, it should be okay to run around saying that black people are low IQ and are stealing all the white women. I mean, you know there would be a strong reaction to that, right? So it must be true.
Re: (Score:3)
By your reasoning, it should be okay to run around saying that black people are low IQ and are stealing all the white women. I mean, you know there would be a strong reaction to that, right? So it must be true.
I believe the "strong reaction" to which the GP was referring was the strong reaction of denial by the alleged authors of the leaked documents, not the "strong reaction" by those now reading them.
Re:shakespeare's answer: (Score:5, Informative)
"methinks the lady doth protest too much"
if the documents were fake, they wouldn't elicit such a strong reaction. therefore, the documents are real
Not to be nit-picky, but when the queen said this in Hamlet, she meant "promise" too much, as the word was sometimes used then.
AWWW... (Score:3)
*letters omitted to protect sensitive but uninformed Slashdot readers from the effects of a Google search.
Here iz me commenting on ur leaked docz. (Score:5, Funny)
And to make sure that there's some substance:
My read on the documents is that they provide conclusive proof that the Heartland Institute promoted systematic criminal fraud, corrupted science and effectively engaged in treasonous activity.
There. Now sue me.
Incidentally, from their website (Score:5, Funny)
Presumably they have the same attitude to the leaked University of East Anglia emails, and have campaigned to have the people responsible for the leak, and the many, many denialists who misrepresented their contents, taken to court.
Heartland Institute Corruption? (Score:5, Funny)
Sue me (Score:3)
My comments on these documents: (Score:5, Insightful)
Whew... Now that that is off my chest...
This is completely unacceptable. We really ought to have laws in place to smack down people that try to use the legal system to suppress protected speech -- this type of prosecution, regardless of the ultimate outcome, causes great harm to the people that are caught up in it. It can cost tens of thousands of dollars to defend yourself, which is financially ruinous to the average person. This creates a chilling effect on free speech, which we really cannot allow if we want to remain free. I honestly believe that the people from the Heartland Institute belong behind bars for even attempting such a thing. So, in short, fuck off Heartland Institute. Keep your shit-digging hands off of my civil liberties. Even if you weren't a braindead anti-science piece of shit of an organization, I would think that it is time for you to go. The fact that everything your institute stands for is a huge, fat, retarded lie does not help your case.
From Internets to Heartland (Score:3, Informative)
Come at me bro.
As it turns out, we do know what burden of proof is. We know that you have it. And I am prepared and willing to watch yourself just try to violate the axiom of non-contradiction. Either they're your documents or they're not.
See there is this thing called the first amendment...
Always idiots... (Score:5, Insightful)
OK, suppose everything Heartland says about the documents is true: someone leaked a bunch of real documents, and slipped a bogus "smoking gun" memo in there.
Any PR firm worth its salt could have a field day with that, portraying the Heartland Institute as the victim. Why would they then ruin it by making ridiculous statements implying it's an individual's legal obligation to fact check a document before commenting on it? Do they just have an institutional need to twirl their evil mustache?
Re:Always idiots... (Score:5, Insightful)
This.
They're acting exactly as if caught red-handed. They've been a professional PR organization in controversial fields and a hostile environment for decades and they can't spin this? Hmm.
Nice font (Score:3)
I thought they chose a nice font for the documents.......DOH!!
The big picture (Score:5, Insightful)
Think about this: how committed to individual liberty is a group that threatens civil and criminal penalties for discussing their donor list?
The Heartland Institute calls themselves a "libertarian think tank" which is rarely disputed. However, they are actually a pro-corporate think tank. This involves a lot of libertarian language and theory, but all of it is aimed at crippling government regulations over their donors. This works very well. It does not, however, advance the libertarian agenda or discussion in useful ways. They are shaping the discussion of liberty along frames they find useful, but have the effect of isolating and stupifying the libertarian movement. The result is bipartisan consensus on the Patriot Act. SOPA. TARP.
Pro-corporate think tanks and their government allies will never be able to have a conversation about state capture, the role of corporate institutions in individual liberty, or free individuals as a curb on corporate excess because a corporate-run tyranny is their preferred outcome. Libertarian-leaning people need to point this out, loudly and often, or they will continue to us for ends we do not support.
Re:The big picture (Score:4, Insightful)
Think about this: how committed to individual liberty is a group that threatens civil and criminal penalties for discussing their donor list?
The Heartland Institute calls themselves a "libertarian think tank" which is rarely disputed. However, they are actually a pro-corporate think tank. This involves a lot of libertarian language and theory, but all of it is aimed at crippling government regulations over their donors. This works very well. It does not, however, advance the libertarian agenda or discussion in useful ways.
This is what "libertarian" has become in the USA. Republicans without the pretence of being on God's advisory panel.
I WANT TO BE SUED (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Right Wingers (Score:4, Interesting)
Well, to be fair, the Democrats are only slightly better... And are in bed with the RIAA and the MPIAA. (Among other things.)
It's really a matter of 'who will do the least damage to the country', not 'who will make the country better'.
(Personally, I refuse to vote for either party, but I know that it's a vain hope that my vote will make any difference.)
Re: (Score:3)
Not going to happen. If a political party can't get at least 35% of the vote in any particular election, it's not relevant in American politics. (And I might argue that number is higher.) Winner takes all, single representation means that there is no space for small parties to gain a foothold and grow: You either need to be a serious contender right off the bat, or you aren't going to be worth talking about.
Re:Right Wingers (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Right Wingers (Score:4, Insightful)
Shot in a known nonlethal way. Bah. Many sociopaths would do that if it means they get what they want.
Here's how to really be commander-in-chief, risk your life on the line and lead the soldiers out to battle in spirit:
http://slashdot.org/journal/208853/how-to-reduce-unwanted-wars [slashdot.org]
That would make even sociopaths think harder before telling others to put life and limb on the line. When you send soldiers to war you're not sending them to be shot in nonlethal parts of their bodies.
Re:Right Wingers (Score:5, Insightful)
This guy watches too many movies. Unless they're just shooting off a pinky finger, any area you get shot by a "high-powered assault rifle" is a lethal area, barring immediate medical attention. Even a shot to the calf would have him bleed out long before he managed to crawl fifty yards.
It's pretty telling that he has given no thought whatsoever to the conscience of the shooter. He's going to order this young man to shoot, and likely kill, someone on live television, just to show how tough he is. He's willing to deal with the physical pain of being shot (likely because he doesn't understand the consequences), but the idea that forcing a person to murder another human being could cause emotional scarring is completely alien to him.
Thankfully, there is absolutely zero chance of this guy being elected to any office.
Re:Right Wingers (Score:4, Insightful)
Just remember - power abhors a vacuum. Maybe you're right to want to kick both out (as I'm sometimes inclined), but if the power structure of government is torn down, others will move quickly to fill that void. And the power poised at this time is corporate power, which when allowed to be unchecked is not controlled by the invisible hand, but rather, becomes an heriditary feudalistic system.
Yeah, they're corrupt as all getup. But when the question is tear it all down or try to fix what we've got, and tearing it all down opens things up to even worse scenarios, one is only left with trying to find a way to fix what is.
At least, until it gets so bad that everyone takes to the streets and we wind up shooting each other until the rage is burned out and the next generation of politicians of some stripe take the reigns.
Re: (Score:3)
At least, until it gets so bad that everyone takes to the streets and we wind up shooting each other until the rage is burned out and a Dictator of some stripe takes the reins.
Fixed that for you.
When you have a violent revolution, the odds are the person or group willing AND capable of exerting the most violence will rise to the top. Once they rise to the top, they are unlikely to give up their power or hold democratic elections. At which point who in the country can kick them out? They already have proven to be capable of the most violence.
And that's why Communist revolutions end up as dictatorships - the Communist Manifesto has violence as part of the implementation plan. When
Re: (Score:3)
I read it and I don't find it compelling. Also she is dumb or a shill, read down to the story collection she posted before the "analysis"
Re: (Score:3)
Thanks for providing a nutter tag word i.e. "naturopathic".
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)