[FPSPACE] from Holocaust denial to Apollo denial

[Dwayne Allen Day]

On Tue, 3 Oct 2000 Palladium@aol.com wrote:

> If they feel they've been damaged, yes. And I believe this has happened,
> in the case of Jim Garrison, who pointed fingers, named names and
> actually filed ludicrous charges against alleged JFK conspirators-- I
> believe some of these people countersued once they'd been exonerated,
> and won.

Entirely different case.  Garrison was a district attorney who tried to
throw people in jail based upon his conspiracy theories.  Those who sued
did so on the basis of false arrest, among other things.  This is yet
another example of the dangers of giving the courts too much power.


>  conspiracies be banned from bookstores?  Should books about Roswell be
>  banned as well?  Should the courts force the removal of websites on these
>  subjects?  What makes Apollo any different?>>
> 
> Gee, I read back through my posting, and I don't believe I anywhere 
> advocated that anyone's books should be BANNED. I said, "anyone who
> slanders an entire class of people with a ridiculous big lie had better
> be prepared to back up the charge with hard facts."

Previous posts that you were supporting advocated using such lawsuits to
force the removal of books.  If people are going to be sued for what they
write, then usually part of that suit is intended to force the removal of
that material from publication.


> <<Now suppose, just suppose, that someone wrote a book about the Soviet
>  Union beating the Americans to the moon back in 1969.  Wouldn't that book
>  be considered an insult to the "brilliant and hard-working people" who
>  worked on Apollo?  Should they be able to seek legal redress too?  Should
>  that book be banned?  Its author sued?>>
> 
> Hmmm, interesting case, that, and entirely hypothetical, I'm sure. Of 
> course if we're talking about fiction here, all bets are off.

Why?  If we have two books and one says that Apollo was faked and another
says that the Soviets beat Apollo to the moon, don't they equally insult
all of the "brilliant and hard-working people" who built Apollo?  How come
one person can save himself from a lawsuit by saying "I was only writing
fiction"?


> << This is a mis-reading of US libel law.>>  
> 
> No it's not-- the precident has been clearly established that public 
> persons fall into a different category than private, mainly because of
> the extreme difficulty in proving malicious intent. But your elucidation
> is appreciated.

Public persons face a much higher bar.  But in general, the bar to
successful proof of libel is there no matter what.  I can call my next
door neighbor a liar and still use the defense that "I honestly believe
him to be a liar."

Further, you claimed that this was an "ad hominem" attack against an
"entire class of people."  My Latin was never all that great, but "ad
hominem" means "to the man" and cannot be applied to an entire class of
people.  If an Apollo denier were to call "Joe Q Jabberwocky, Apollo pad
technician" a liar, then Joe Q Jabberwocky might have grounds for a libel
suit.  But if that denier says that "all NASA employees are liars," then a
class-action libel suit will be virtually impossible.  (Note that I
pointed out that class action libel suits in the US against Holocaust
deniers have failed.)


> Again, no one's talking about making bonfires of books (nice attempt at 
> the classic "cultural Nazism" straw man, there). Just as anyone has the
> right to say or print whatever they want, anyone also has the right to
> file suit if they feel they've been damaged.  We're not talking about
> state censorship, we're talking about individuals using the legal system
> to ensure accountability. 
> 
> Pointing a finger and screaming "Nazi! Book burner! Advocate of Censorship!"
> is last refuge of the sloppy, sensationalistic, or agenda-driven
> journalist.  

Poppycock.  The idea of using the power of the state to suppress opinions
that you find distasteful is dangerous no matter what mechanism you
propose, whether it be getting the PTA to pull "Catcher in the
Rye" off the school library shelf or a libel suit to force the
removal of a book claiming that Apollo was a hoax.  Just because you
disagree with someone gives you no right to call for the suppression of
their views.  A journalist would understand that.



DDAY