Thursday, March 01, 2012

Not a Slam Dunk


Columbia Journalism Review
on professional ethics and legal liability of Peter Gleick and the blogs with respect to the Heartland Institute. Eli told you that third thing would show up.

Thanks to J Bowers for the pointer

49 comments:

Anonymous said...

Hahahaha. An article about "legal liability" and not a single reference to any Federal, State, or local statutes.

It is nothing more than an opinion piece or wishful thinking.


Weak very weak.


Keep hope alive I guess.



Celery Eater

J Bowers said...

Someone's cage has clearly been rattled.

Anonymous said...

One more thought.

All you guys need to do is show this article to lawyers, get them to agree with some part of it, then you can declare that:

- A consensus of lawyers agree Peter Gleick is a hero

- The debate is over


Genius.


Peter Gleick should go to jail At the very least I hoipe he is prosecuted, but in political things you never know.


Celery Eater

Anonymous said...

J Bowers,

Yes yours has, keep defended criminal activity, you'll go places.


Having a ball

Celery Eater

Brian said...

CE, it might have helped if you read the article. There are multiple references to different types of federal and state laws. As to local "statutes", I don't think you know what you're talking about.

I think the biggest missing legal issue from the article was potential privacy claims by individual staffers over their salaries, but only those staffers who weren't public figures. And that would be their individual claim, not Heartland's.

The hilarious part about all this is Heartland's claim that revealing true information about it has damaged its reputation.

J Bowers said...

"...but in political things you never know."

The conspiracy theorist's eternal get-out clause.

"Peter Gleick should go to jail"

Without even a trial or evidence laid on the table yet. So much for freedom, be it of speech, or whatever.

andrew adams said...

Celery Eater,

I've seen varying and contrasting views from my "side" on Gleick's actions, and a lot of general discussion about the extent to which such actions can be justified in pursuit of the greater good.

I don't remember the "skeptics" being particularly concerned about the ethics of the "climategate" hacker/leaker.

Anonymous said...

J Bowers,

He should go to jail only if after he is charged, prosecuted and convicted by a jury of his peers.

Brian,

Point taken on statutes, I should have just said laws.


Like these;

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=00001-01000&file=484-502.9

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_18_of_the_United_States_Code


Perhaps a review of Peter Gleick's legal liabilty would have gone over the actual laws related to his actions.


There are zero references in that article to the actual laws Brian.



Celery Eater

Anonymous said...

Andrew Adams,

In regards to the AGU "hacker".

- We do not know who obtained the emails

- We do not know how they were obtained


So if I speculate it was Joe Smith and he impersonated another person to obtain them or hacked an AGU server/network to obtain them, Joe should face criminal charges.


Celery Eater

Doug said...

Useful article but again from a narrow perspective, that of contextual ethics as they specifically pertain to journalists.

Heartland's just one of a collection of organizations dedicated to promoting narrow interests in a measurably dangerous and even lethal way. Years ago WHO produced an estimate of 150K/annum excess human morbidity due to climate change, this number expected to grow steadily to the extent the problem remains unchecked. Heartland etc. are concentrated in activities ensuring this morbidity does grow, so they are quite arguably a roughly quantifiable dangerous nuisance to the public. We've seen a couple of decades of ineffectual response to the C02 threat, arguably mostly due to intentional efforts by the likes of Heartland. Our politicians are not protecting us from the risks imposed on us by Heartland etc., indeed no normally acceptable civil treatment has produced a significant check to their efforts.

There's a -reasonable- case here for lying. See Bok's "Lying: Moral Choice in Public and Private Life" if you'd like to be able to talk about that from an informed perspective.

But let's not worry about the greater good. Let's instead concentrate on rumor mongering about the provenance of a memo.

Hank Roberts said...

Good article. I see both at CJR and here the auto-responders posted the first replies, making false claims about what it said. No surprise.

andrew adams said...

Celery Eater,

But even those who think Gleick's actions were justified are not saying he should be above the law. The question is, can such actions (or support for them) still be morally justified?

Would you still support the actions of the climategate hacker/leaker if (and I've seen no plausible argument to the contrary)they are proved to be unlawful?

Anonymous said...

"Would you still support the actions of the climategate hacker/leaker if (and I've seen no plausible argument to the contrary)they are proved to be unlawful?"


No



Celery Eater

Brian said...

I see virtually no chance that the email theft in the UK was legal although IANABritishL.

Even if the released emails should've been released based on FOI requests, that doesn't create a right to steal them (same holds true in America). And there's the several hundred thousand other stolen emails that haven't been released yet but were still stolen.

But since the emails proved the scientists were doing a pretty good job, that theft may not matter.

Doug said...

Amazingly enough it turns out there is actually a single token ethicist among the thirteen otherwise out-of-scope and locally inexpert members of AGU's ethics panel.

Wouldn't it nice to hear a detailed analysis of Gleick's behavior by that person? Unfortunately the AGU panicked and didn't bother with this step before bolting all wall-eyed out of the barn, but still it would be interesting to hear the perspective of the person duly enrolled by the AGU to allow them some actual deeply informed insight into ethics.

John said...

1) Re: "The hilarious part about all this is Heartland's claim that revealing true information about it has damaged its reputation."

I do not claim to know the specific law(s) appropriate here but those who control the making of the laws often (if not most often) see to it that their fraud and lying (not necessarily accurate legal terms) are beyond legal purview OR are actually protected.

Examples are 1) NO requirement that candidates' campaigns for office are bound to some level of truth and 2) the FOX Corp Florida supreme court case affirming that news reporting entities are similarly devoid of any standard of accuracy.

2) Re: Heartland's, and their ilk's responsibility for human morbidity due to climate change. While I'd agreed to their responsibility, given the tobacco industry "saga," I cannot expect any legal progress in this regard.

John Puma

John Mashey said...

Regarding morbidity, recall that HI has defended cigarettes, mercury, dioxin, asbestos, arsenic as well.

Besides the delightful "roosters of the apocalypse," one of the few real surprises for me in the 2012 documents was the fact that HI Was getting *more* tobacco money now than when I lost them ~2001 as the tobacco archives faded out. In 2011, that was $50K from Altria and $110K from Reynolds. Maybe the latter recalled Joseph Bast's ardent defense of Joe Camel. I hope everyone on HI's side is happy to be aliggned with accomplices to businesses that survive by addicting children.
If people want to read a true horror story, I strongly recommend Robert Proctor's new book, Golden Holocaust: Origins of the Cigarette Catastrophe and the Case for Abolition.

The tobacco guys were pioneers of anti-science and the thintkanks got their training with them.

Anonymous said...

John Mashey,

To use your logic...


You must really hate Al Gore and all that tobacco money he has had over the years. He is up to his elbows in children's blood from tobacco.

Oh but his cause was just so f the details with someone on our side.


You are such a .....



Celery Eater

dbostrom said...

Not logic, reason. We don't live logically but we do live more or less reasonably.

Obtuse: a double entendre.

Anonymous said...

Here are some more institutions that are not thinking of the children because they are accepting money from a tobacco company.


The American Red Cross

http://files.shareholder.com/downloads/RAI/1719980875x0x495512/b9efaf28-1533-4ef7-8b63-466cb5543ce0/2011-15_RA_Foundation_donates_250K_for_NC_hurricane_relief.pdf


And ironically a career acadamy for kids.

http://www.the-dispatch.com/article/20111220/News/312209988


You get after them John and make sure you let them know that they are not thinking of the children by accepting money from an evil tobacco company.


This site is going down hard and fast. No more facts, no links references to anything factual just wild opinions from those who want to tell us all how to live and who gets a voice and who does not.


Celery Eater

a_ray_in_dilbert_space said...

CE says, "This site is going down hard and fast."

And yet you are still here. Odd that. And annoying.

Anonymous said...

Only because it annoys you a_ray. As long as you are around I will be.

btw way to ignore any and all references I link, funny that. Afraid of learning something?


Celery Eater

dbostrom said...

... just wild opinions ...

Just the Columbia Journalism Review, nothing at all.

CE really doesn't know what CJR is? What a breathtaking scope of ignorance.

CE stands for the real backbone of the fossil fuel industry rubbish blizzard, obliviously volunteering to abase themselves no matter how ridiculous they may appear. Who needs to pay for a conspiracy when such as CE are ready to mindlessly walk their egos into a furnace of stupidity. For that matter who would consent to do such work if they were offered to be paid for it but had the mental faculties to realize what it entailed? Even working behind a nom de plume it would be difficult to consciously gag down such humiliation.

Now to stand back and wait for the next stream of stinking rot.

Anonymous said...

The CJR wrote an article about legal liabilty and they do not cite nor link a single law. And you think it is brilliant and I am stupid for pointing that out.

Nice appeal to authority, I like to think for myself. Did you review the relevant laws in this matter that I linked? No? Why is that?


Conspiracy theories? Me? lol No that is all the bunnies all concerned about "big oil" and "big tobacco" taking over the world via anonymous donations.


Now run along and go find some other authority to tell you what to think and say next.



Celery Eater

dbostrom said...

...they do not cite nor link a single law.

Except for three examples of case law, with links pointing to histories which lead to relevant statutes.

Does it physically hurt when you treat yourself the way you do? Do you get a headache?

Obtuse.

On the other hand, a popular diagnostic for insanity is failing the same way, over and over again, expecting each new iteration to be different. So maybe I'm insane.

Brian said...

CE's link to a wiki article about the entire US criminal code doesn't strike me as especially specific or relevant.

J Bowers said...

"You must really hate Al Gore and all that tobacco money he has had over the years."

You mean between 1980 and 1990? Didn't he also end up backing warning labels on cartons? The family hasn't grown tobacco since the 1990's, by the way.

Oh, how's that HI Smoker's Lounge still going?

Anonymous said...

"Except for three examples of case law, with links pointing to histories which lead to relevant statutes."

Except the actual laws were never mentioned in any of those links and although indirectly related none of the 3 examples are like Gleicks.

The ABC one was close and guess what they were found guilty of "trespass amd committed fraud". Oops. Yes you are insane.


"CE's link to a wiki article about the entire US criminal code doesn't strike me as especially specific or relevant."

Oh I see Brian I am expected to dig through all the links in an article but you do not have to, lazy much?

Here Brian open my link, scroll half way down the page by using the scroll bar on the right, the wheel on your mouse or the down arrow key (more detailed instructions available upon request) and look for this.

"§1343 applies to fraud by wire, radio, or television."


Click on "fraud by wire" by depressing the left mouse button with your right index finger when the mouse pointer is over the phrase. You are using a hyperlink or link.

The above Federal Law is what Peter violated when he impersonated an HI board Memeber via email. The difficult part will proving damage to HI however if the individual who was impersonated wants to press charges...


Glad I could hold your hands this morning. It always seems you have different rules for different people. I HAVE to click multiple layers of links others do not is just the latest example.


I clicked all your links and still did not find any relevant laws or discussion of them as it pertains to THIS case.


I can see why you just accept whatever a "scientist" says as fact, you do not posess critical thinking skills OR you purposely choose not to use them.

And finally to John Mashey,

Yes Al Gore from the 80's and 90's you were around then and I am sure you were pointing out to Mr. Gore how many children whose death he was responsible for.

Make it easy and retract your statement of whoever supports HI has children blood on their hands via donations from tobacco companies. Or be consistent and apply that rule to everyone and everything. I am not holding my breath. Consistency is no longer found on RR.


Celery Eater

J Bowers said...

"fraud by wire"

* Mail and wire fraud
* Honest services fraud

What legal right or property has Heartland Institute been permanently deprived of?

Anonymous said...

J Bowers,

http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/43mcrm.htm

US Attorney's Prosecution Policy for mail and wire fraud.

Depends on the US attorney, at the Federal Level it looks like they would probably pass as it is:
"Prosecutions of fraud ordinarily should not be undertaken if the scheme employed consists of some isolated transactions between individuals, involving minor loss to the victims, in which case the parties should be left to settle their differences by civil or criminal litigation in the state courts."

Small potatoes. So although the elements of wire fraud are met the Federal will most likely defer to the State in this case.

At the state level, my prior link had to do with theft of propoerty in CA. It seems Peter may have more trouble with this code:

http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/528.5.html



Peter broke the laws at the state and Federal levels. The question remains whether or no he will be prosecuted.

See dbostrom this is why I do not appeal to authority and get all "wowed" by "Columbia Journalism Review". It hinders your ability to learn new things, go discover and research.


Celery Eater

dbostrom said...

. It always seems you have different rules for different people. I HAVE to click multiple layers of links others do not is just the latest example.

Other people MADE you do it. Persecution, so ugly, and so oddly unjustified when the victim is volunteer.

Why not write a letter to the editor of CJR, complaining about how their article caused you to be mistreated by all the people who are against you?

Anonymous said...

dbostrom,

I was reasoning on the rules not complaining about some social injustice, that is your job.

Go along and play now, maybe tomorrow you can get some more instructions from some authority as to what to think and say tomorrow.



Celery Eater

J Bowers said...

CE, I still don't see how 528.5 means Gleick committed fraud. Will you at least get your story straight on what it is you'd like to see Gleick go to jail for and stop moving the goalposts? Thanks.

Anonymous said...

I never restricted to potential charges or that he only committed fraud, that is all you.

I am not the one moving goal posts. Get up, walk down the hall and enter your bathroom, turn on the light and look directly into the mirror.


Trouble understanding this from 528.5?

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any person
who knowingly and without consent credibly impersonates another
actual person through or on an Internet Web site or by other
electronic means for purposes of harming, intimidating, threatening,
or defrauding another person is guilty of a public offense punishable
pursuant to subdivision (d).


Hmm nothing about fraud. Let me read my first post stating I wanted to see Gleick go to jail.

"Peter Gleick should go to jail At the very least I hoipe he is prosecuted, but in political things you never know."


Nope no mention of fraud there either.

Nice try Bowers, but you came up short.




Celery Eater

J Bowers said...

CE, I said nothing about there not being anything about fraud in 528.5.

528.5 still says nothing about whether Gleick committed fraud. 528.5 is not about fraud, it's about impersonation, be it for a number of purposes including fraud. Get it?

J Bowers said...

Also, sorry, but you want Gleick to go to jail, and then in other posts cite wire fraud. Oh, so sorry for putting the two together. I'm sure thousands wouldn't.

Anonymous said...

J Bowers,

I got it awhile ago, you seem very lost and stuck on fraud.

You are struggling to make sense, keep trying you might get there.

In other posts I cited wire fraud as a potential offense amongst others. Peter has committed many offenses. For example:

"Like these;

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=00001-01000&file=484-502.9

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_18_of_the_United_States_Code


Perhaps a review of Peter Gleick's legal liabilty would have gone over the actual laws related to his actions."



The funny part of this (irony warning) is Peter Gleick was all upset about anonymous donors to HI and wanted to make that information public. So his plan was to do it it anonymously! lol


Yes I want Peter to go to jail and pay for his crimes. Whther thta happens or not remains to be seen.



J Bowers please go to the hardware store and buy a nail and a hammer and nail down your feet so you will stop running around in circles making no sense.



Celery Eater

J Bowers said...

CE, you mean 'alleged' crimes, surely? HI haven't even authenticated the documents yet. They seem to have been a bit busy whipping their useful idiots into a frenzy of spurious allegations.

Anonymous said...

Yeah "alleged", with an admission. HI has validated the documents and even went into great detail about what was "real" (copied&pasted) in the fake memo and what was written by whomever created that fake document.

I know I know since they accept money from tobacco companies they are most certainly lying and just want to hurt more children.


Still have not seen Mashey report how the Red Cross is not thinking of the children because they are associated with a tobacco company by accepting their money.

"In 2011, that was $50K from Altria and $110K from Reynolds. Maybe the latter recalled Joseph Bast's ardent defense of Joe Camel. I hope everyone on HI's side is happy to be aliggned with accomplices to businesses that survive by addicting children."

The above would equally aplly to any institution that accepted money from tobacco companies, if you want to be consistent.

Let's see Rabetts do not care about the actual texts of the laws, they do not care when the Masheys of the world make stupid outrageous statements, they just want the team to look good. Well, you all are making your side like pretty darn inconsistent and looney.

Hmm this site use to be challenging, not so much anymore.


Celry Eater

Anonymous said...

lol mispelled my own name! Classic quick read..



Celery Eater

dbostrom said...

Go along and play now, maybe tomorrow you can get some more instructions from some authority as to what to think and say tomorrow.

Ah, the conspiracy, right. ;-)

I -am- playing, right now. You're a figure of fun, Gumby.

Anonymous said...

As I said before conspiracies are from your side "big oil" "big tobacco" etc. You appealed to authority and fawned all over CJR.

You chose to agree with what they said and not further explore the topic, because of who they are, that my friend is weak.

Call me any name you like it shows you have nothing constructive to add, no references to any new information or to anything that adds to the topic. Nothing of your own to say.


I am glad I am a source of fun, because you bore the hell out of me. You are a little minnow at a lake's shore, one of many mindless drones.


Celery Eater

J Bowers said...

"As I said before conspiracies are from your side "big oil" "big tobacco" etc."

That's all documented. There are archives of this stuff. For example.

"Yeah "alleged", with an admission."

Not to fraud, and not to faking the policy document. But apparently HI are always factually correct and tell it how it is without exception. Who'd have thought?

Anonymous said...

"Not to fraud, and not to faking the policy document. But apparently HI are always factually correct and tell it how it is without exception. Who'd have thought?"


Yeah because we should take the word of an admitted liar and con artist.



Celery Eater

J Bowers said...

"Yeah because we should take the word of an admitted liar and con artist."

Take away the word 'admitted' and one would be forgiven for puzzling over who you're referring to.

dbostrom said...

Call me any name you like it shows you have nothing constructive to add, no references to any new information or to anything that adds to the topic.

Reference to Gumby.

Anonymous said...

Peter Gleick the liar and con artist.

dostrom,


Yawn.



Celery Eater

susan said...

CE, you have reached the lowest circle of blog commenters, which I name "crashing bore agendaist snarker."

The rest of you should leave him/her alone, and he/she would shut up.

Analysis of the "forgery" showed it most closely resembled the style of - wait for it - Joseph Bast. Probably an earlier draft or one of his minions. Secretaries often write these things, and s/he, far from overpaid, may have gotten tired of the nastiness and mailed it out. Likely, I'd think.

(susan anderson)

susan said...

May s/he had a kid in school and didn't like the idea of the kid being propagandized instead of educated. Even more likely.