PubPeer "filed a motion to quash a subpoena filed on behalf of a cancer researcher who claims that PubPeer comments noting potential image irregularities in his publications cost him a lucrative new job."
The researcher claims that the anonymous "suggestions of misconduct caused the University of Mississippi to rescind its offer of a tenured faculty position that he had accepted" in a suit "against multiple “John Does” for defamation and interference with a business relationship"
PubPeer is confident in their position and explain, "the First Amendment is on our side. It protects the right to anonymous speech. The right isn’t absolute, but it protects those who choose to remain anonymous when engaging in lawful speech".
http://news.sciencemag.org/people-events/2014/12/defamation-case-pubpeer-moves-quash-subpoena-unmask-anonymous-commenters
(Score: 2) by tibman on Thursday December 18 2014, @03:01PM
It's only defamation if it's untrue. Anyone looking at those pictures can tell they are photoshopped. https://imgur.com/poxpa7b [imgur.com]
Orignal SN article: https://soylentnews.org/article.pl?sid=14/10/27/1741237 [soylentnews.org]
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Thexalon on Thursday December 18 2014, @03:51PM
Not necessarily - it depends on the jurisdiction, whether the target is a public figure, and a few other factors. Truthfully announcing that somebody who has previously been obscure has copraphilia (or something similarly defamatory) is in fact sometimes legally actionable. If I'm not mistaken, this question has come up when people were "outed" as homosexual.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 18 2014, @05:37PM
There are doctor - patient confidentiality agreements that doctors must conform to and if they break such agreements it could still be actionable but it wouldn't fall under defamation (ie: libel or slander). Disclosing confidential and true information would fall under something else.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Thursday December 18 2014, @06:46PM
It's only defamation if it's untrue.
Not necessarily - it depends on the jurisdiction, whether the target is a public figure, and a few other factors. Truthfully announcing that somebody who has previously been obscure has copraphilia (or something similarly defamatory) is in fact sometimes legally actionable. If I'm not mistaken, this question has come up when people were "outed" as homosexual.
The EFF Disagrees with you. [eff.org]
Is truth a defense to defamation claims?
Yes. Truth is an absolute defense to a defamation claim. But keep in mind that the truth may be difficult and expensive to prove.
Being gay falls into the difficult to prove category if you aren't already "out."
(Score: 3, Insightful) by edIII on Thursday December 18 2014, @06:52PM
I think you are mistaken. The act of free speech serves to introduce information to the public. When the information is correct, and after review, found to have malicious intent, it's still correct information. It's important that truth never be punished.
What you are talking about has nothing to do with defamation, or the act of free speech. Coprophilia, homosexuality, or any other kind of apparent social deviations fall under information that is intended to remain private. It's not the act of free speech that is punishable, it's the fact you removed a reasonable expectation of privacy and infringed upon the right of privacy of another citizen. I realize that privacy right is a bit nebulous and not strongly supported by the Constitution, but I will always vehemently disagree and state that the founding fathers of my country did indeed consider privacy and anonymity to be sacrosanct and not violable by one citizen against another.
If the information was initially meant to be public, which in this case I can't see how it wasn't, than this researcher with questionable integrity has no foundations upon which to rest their argument. Pointing out malfeasance and dishonesty in these matters may remove the privacy of a citizen, but the citizen never had a reasonable expectation of privacy to keep such disreputable actions from becoming well deserved consequences. This is something we already agree upon in principle, and created the 4th Amendment to protect us, while still allowing reasonable removable of privacy when citizens act against the freedom, safety, and prosperity (property) of other citizens. Privacy is not an absolute, or a shield to protect malfeasance.
Where does the researcher obtain immediate relief for their damages? The university. Those to which he made his plea for tenure are well capable, highly trained, and recognized by their peers as having the ability to evaluate information impartially to arrive at conclusions that can be verified and repeated. If he was defamed, and there was not even a semblance of truth to it, then the very truth should set him free. For him to go to a court and ask his peers for justice, is to ask people less capable to review the information. It's far more productive usage of his time to be applying to other universities not so mentally deficient that they cannot evaluate his innocence and proper contributions towards science.
We aren't talking about playing with your feces while having sex, or choosing a same sex partner. The information revealed here was specific, and not intended to cause harm. The information shows that he lied, not that he was socially defective in ways to summon social justice warriors from the nooks and crannies of our world to defend him against unlawful oppression.
Truthfully, the argument that he was defamed with truth sounds more like "But, I stole it FIRST!!!" in an argument between thieves. Yes, it does suck when karma catches up to you. Punishing people for truth is illogical, IMO. In the cases of homosexuality, it's society that is defective, not the homosexual. If the truth being revealed challenges us in such ways, than I propose it only illuminates our defectiveness as allegedly evolved beings.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 18 2014, @07:19PM
Defamation laws also vary by country. In this case I think all the parties are United States? In which case I don't think relative weight of the matter is at hand. OTOH, if the Anonymous comments were "These are wrong, nobody should ever trust him!" the latter half of the statement is opinion, not fact. But that's why we have courts instead of trying either the researcher or PubPeer in the court of public opinion. (Oh, wait! that's what PubPeer is seeking to do, isn't it...)
(Score: 3, Informative) by tibman on Thursday December 18 2014, @07:31PM
The anonymous pubpeer comments were backed up with facts (in this specific case). https://pubpeer.com/publications/8EB4592F23B61CC3EE7CF29A7522AF [pubpeer.com]
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.