They are – as you imply – now used for all sorts of purposes that have nothing to do with the original intent: to compensate living persons for actual harm done to them by demonstrably false statements.

(= Jane Schmeazle doesn’t get a job washing car windows at a dealership because someone persistently asserts in the media that she is a car thief, but that is untrue/unproven – and the untrue/unproven statements are costing her her livelihood.)

Concepts, religions, ideas, dead persons, et cetera, should never be causes under any kind of defamation law – because they do not have interests in this world in the specific sense I am describing above.

And no libel law should be constructed in such a way as to prevent vigorous public debate.

But if a person, for whatever reason, persistently misrepresents himself – the only point I am trying to make is that the journalist should be able to rely on the legal defense of honest mistake.

If you wish to say something about this site, why not go ahead and do so?

Phoning them is the usual procedure – but it may not necessarily help.

Anyway, the question of honest mistake is certainly discussable. I only offer it because I can see how, under certain circumstances, it may properly be offered as a defense to a libel action.

I wish Le Fanu would issue a statement. Or New Scientist.

I am certainly not the only person who would like to know what is going on here.

I am especially concerned because I am a Free Speech journalist, here in Canada.

I will try to prioritize reading L-F’s book.

There are a number of new books coming out on the design side, so I can’t help wondering … is this all just a ruse to reach the top of people’s overloaded In Trays?

Oh, who knows? But if it is not a ruse I’ll thank anyone for trying to find out what is happening.

I agree that Gefter’s conspirazoid ramblings do no credit to New Scientist. But surely most people solve the problem by just flipping the page. So … ?

This vaguely reminds me of the situation a few years ago when commenters were writing here to UD to rant about Ann Coulter (an American pundette, sometimes bestselling).

At one point, I responded something like: YOU give her the power, because you listen. Stop listening, and she loses power. Don’t write to me to complain about Coulter if you are listening to her and speaking and writing about her.

And if you are not listening to Coulter, you don’t actually know what she is saying, so why … ?

And if very few people are listening to her, hasn’t the problem you are ranting about solved itself?

It felt sort of like a guy bashing his head against a brick wall and complaining that his head hurts – but he won’t stop.

And he wants me to help pass a law against brick walls.

Yeah really.