I'm not fan of conservative law professors generally but I can't see what's unreasonable about the argument he's making here. Broadcasting lies about someone is bad for them and the "those fools should know this is bs so I'm not responsible" defense is itself bs.
Edit: While I might not agree with Turley, his wikipedia bio makes him sound far more principled and consistent than the average "public intellectual" today.
He phoned the researcher's CEO and subtly threatened legal action. This is spin at it's finest.
Or, he got in touch with the company he thought the researcher was affiliated with, to discuss what he felt was a very serious issue without involving lawyers. The classic outrage case is when a big company starts sending scary letters signed by lawyers, first thing. Maybe we should be less outraged when someone goes out of his way to be reasonable.
I agree. The academic is in too deep and looking to spread the liability around. Best to just say you are talking to your lawyer and never respond again (lest the academic try to find new "academic" ways to blame others).
Also: academics are generally not business people, nor are they generally lawyers. Something to consider.
> I get that lots of people here agree with him: they think JSTOR is awful and they think they're entitled to do whatever they want to JSTOR, the laws be damned. But why should prosecutors believe that?
They might want to believe it because JSTOR declined to press charges. Isn't that a compelling reason?
One thing that stuck out to me after reading the initial vitriolic Twitter thread from the author saying "How dare you!" is that the author is a lawyer by day, which I find interesting, since they seem to be very uninformed about copyright and fair use.
It seems like the appropriate party has been held responsible here - the lawyer who submitted false statements without doing proper verification and due diligence. This is no different than if the lawyer googled "case law supporting XYZ", found some random blog, and copy-pasted their citations without realizing they were made up.
I agree the lawyer is doing the right thing for his role - perhaps I should have phrased as "ridiculous for this argument to be taken seriously" or some such.
Tangential but the article he links thats supposed to show a coordinated effort to get him fired is very trivial and pretty funny. He should try tikka masala, its really good!
What a great link you’ve posted — a fascinating read indeed.
A law professor who took his boss to court, filing a 200 page complaint after waiting until the last possible day for filing, which included a seven year history of gripes leading up to the physical altercation that went to trial… a law professor who lifts and plays golf who also got a dodgy post-hoc diagnosis a year after the event that it was the altercation tore his shoulder and not his lifestyle choices… a law professor who went through four attorneys before finally deciding to represent himself in court…
You’d perhaps think I was creating hyperbole from the linked judgment but the judgement from the appeal court — especially the tone in which it is written — is no less damning than the facts I just picked out from the first few sections.
It’s appalling that the WSJ published this professor’s blog entry as editorial commentary.
An anonymous person saying "trust me. I am a professional in some tangentially related field and I did an analysis" won't carry much weight in a court (nor should it).
That legal threat was not a good response. I think both sides messed up here.
It seems like the ex-intern made an honest mistake especially given his age. This isn't exactly the same but Helen Keller messed up and plagiarised when she was young before. People do dumb things, especially when they're young.
I am surprised he was allowed to get away with it.
reply