tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6763377479629539589.post8847932243772275794..comments2023-10-11T09:41:19.089+02:00Comments on Philosophical Comment: Brian Leiter's Christmas Present: Threatening Colleagues with Defamation Suit for Signing "The September Statement" and Carrie Ichikawa-Jenkins with Exposure of Intimate Health DetailsChristian Munthehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03373442927438898939noreply@blogger.comBlogger17125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6763377479629539589.post-70150037668403708922015-05-22T19:35:51.048+02:002015-05-22T19:35:51.048+02:00did he ever sue?did he ever sue?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6763377479629539589.post-27642787858182745742014-12-27T08:39:52.621+01:002014-12-27T08:39:52.621+01:00Perhaps we should ask the Loathsome Leiter's l...Perhaps we should ask the Loathsome Leiter's lawyer whether or not accusing an anonymous commenter of being the Loathsome Leiter is legally actionable slander? Is it slander all the way down with this guy? Maybe, instead, he just shouldn't behave like such a loathsome jerk to so many of his perceived adversaries, and none of this sort of thing would happen.Ultimate Philosopherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04097520862033889365noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6763377479629539589.post-20813706478148060332014-12-26T14:11:58.226+01:002014-12-26T14:11:58.226+01:00From Daily Nous.... Best break down of the failure...From Daily Nous.... Best break down of the failure of Leiter's case<br /><br />Disgusted on Dec 25, 2014 • 1:25 pm at 1:25 pm Reply<br />What was Leiter defamed by? Here is the entire text of Jenkins’ tumblr post:<br />—<br /><br />(after quoting the tumblr)—<br /><br />Note that Leiter is not mentioned in this post at all. It was Leiter himself that, egocentrically, assumed it was about him. After Jenkins posted this, Leiter writes to call her a “sanctimonious asshole.” But seriously, who but an asshole could have a problem with this post?<br /><br />Here are the relevant lines from the September Statement:<br /><br />“Professor Jenkins has been targeted by Professor Brian Leiter (University of Chicago) with derogatory and intimidating remarks privately by email in July, and recently with further derogatory remarks publicly on Twitter.” – TRUE<br /><br />“Professor Jenkins wrote the following blog post in July:<br />http://csi-jenkins.tumblr.com/post/90563605390/day-one<br />in response to which Professor Leiter sent her an email saying that she comes across as a “sanctimonious asshole” (and indicating that he is not sure whether “in real life” she is a sanctimonious asshole or a “civilized person”). The email also intimates that Professor Leiter is contemplating litigation against Professor Jenkins, states that he is wondering “what she is ‘thinking’ if anything”, and asks if she plans to spit at him at the APA or chase him with a bat.” – TRUE<br /><br />“He has now followed this up by saying publicly on Twitter that he has called Carrie a “sanctimonious arse”. He sent her another email in an attempt to apologise for ‘upsetting her’, “ – TRUE<br /><br />“The effects of this on Professor Jenkins since July have been very serious, impacting her health, her capacity to work, and her ability to contribute to public discourse as a member of the profession.” – This is what’s disputed, but there seems to be evidence that it is TRUE.<br /><br />(As far as I can tell, the September Statement does not use the word “tormenter” to describe Leiter — a word that only appears in HIS lawyer’s letter.)<br /><br />—<br /><br />Brian Leiter’s lawsuit threat is pathetic bluster aimed at scaring the entire profession away from criticizing him and his awful behavior. This is not the first time he has threatened stupid lawsuits, and it probably won’t be the last. I hope we stand together and make it clear that we disapprove of his strong arm (not to mention ineffectual) tactics to protect himself from criticismAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6763377479629539589.post-7388350739682319232014-12-26T09:50:37.249+01:002014-12-26T09:50:37.249+01:00Hi all,
as obsessed as I am, I'll be off on h...Hi all,<br /><br />as obsessed as I am, I'll be off on holiday and blessedly offline for a week, so no comments will be cleared for a while. Alas, the amount of spam makes it impossible for me to open the comments field entirely. Cheers!Christian Munthehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03373442927438898939noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6763377479629539589.post-29832571056793097022014-12-26T03:37:17.326+01:002014-12-26T03:37:17.326+01:00I don't condone harassment or intimidation, bu...I don't condone harassment or intimidation, but if this is your best description of the occurrence of such behavior by philosophers, you live in an Ivory Tower.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6763377479629539589.post-24802039716053916982014-12-26T02:58:28.615+01:002014-12-26T02:58:28.615+01:00Hi Brian!! *waves emphatically*Hi Brian!! *waves emphatically*Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6763377479629539589.post-54540072138542290592014-12-25T23:59:47.211+01:002014-12-25T23:59:47.211+01:00Hi Jonathan! Hi Carrie! Hi Justin! Hi Christian...Hi Jonathan! Hi Carrie! Hi Justin! Hi Christian! Hi everyone who is friends with Brian or Jonathan or Carrie! Maybe we could focus on the arguments? On the internet, we have no idea who anyone is.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6763377479629539589.post-80827444001361425782014-12-25T23:41:36.438+01:002014-12-25T23:41:36.438+01:00Leiter's lawyer's letter also states that ...Leiter's lawyer's letter also states that "[t]he September Statement falsely portrays Professor Leiter as a "tormentor" of Professor Jenkins". Under Anonymous 17:35's analysis, if this portrait is false, then "Jenkins has a legal problem"--is that right? I don't know enough about Canadian libel law or the terms lawyers there use in practice to tell whether Leiter's lawyer is using "falsely portrays" as a synonym for "falsely states".Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6763377479629539589.post-13876520252417504422014-12-25T23:31:35.000+01:002014-12-25T23:31:35.000+01:00If Christian is at risk of being sued his "ob...If Christian is at risk of being sued his "obsession" is quite rational, Brian.John Emersonhttp://www.haquelebac.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6763377479629539589.post-37067989555843560432014-12-25T23:03:27.780+01:002014-12-25T23:03:27.780+01:00All those 'Hi Brianing', whether you are r...All those 'Hi Brianing', whether you are right or wrong about it being him, are still attacking a straw man... The first Anonymous's comments seem reasonable. So what if it is Brian? Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6763377479629539589.post-22554060178379099702014-12-25T22:35:17.576+01:002014-12-25T22:35:17.576+01:00Would Brian really comment anonymously after all t...Would Brian really comment anonymously after all those years of deriding people for posting comments without posting their names and even calling them "juvenile jackass" as he announced IP addresses? See, e.g., http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2012/02/juvenile-jackass-watch-the-case-of-ip-address-122182042.html as an example of such sleuthing.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6763377479629539589.post-53450142454617396182014-12-25T21:42:21.857+01:002014-12-25T21:42:21.857+01:00Ohhhh Hai BrianOhhhh Hai BrianAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6763377479629539589.post-90020527217700762802014-12-25T21:21:03.779+01:002014-12-25T21:21:03.779+01:00Hi Brian!Hi Brian!Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05018243335902307150noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6763377479629539589.post-47211328657155642232014-12-25T20:57:59.086+01:002014-12-25T20:57:59.086+01:00Hi Brian!Hi Brian!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6763377479629539589.post-42844480363406597412014-12-25T20:45:27.074+01:002014-12-25T20:45:27.074+01:00Brian, when you attempt to comment anonymously, yo...Brian, when you attempt to comment anonymously, you really should edit those comments to remove obvious tells like your repeated use of the term "obsession" to characterize any remarks on your behavior. <br /><br />Bharath Vallabha has addressed your use of "obsession" here: http://theroughground.blogspot.com/2014/11/email-from-leiter.html <br /><br />"It seems to me you need to make up your mind on whether you want to be a well-known person...." Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6763377479629539589.post-7168887112983177682014-12-25T19:19:52.078+01:002014-12-25T19:19:52.078+01:00Hi Brian at 17:35!Hi Brian at 17:35!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6763377479629539589.post-70840720479182952792014-12-25T17:35:13.322+01:002014-12-25T17:35:13.322+01:00Christian, your obsession with this Leiter case is...Christian, your obsession with this Leiter case is getting the better of you. Most of this post is attacking strawmen. The lawyer's letter is quite clear: it claims that it is false that Leiter's e-mail affected Jenkin's work and health. If that is false, Jenkins has a legal problem. Contrary to Ichikawa, there is nothing in the letter claiming that Leiter was defamed by "1.Carrie’s pledge on her tumblr blog to behave with civility towards other philosophers and colleagues; 2.Carrie’s post to Facebook of the complete text of Professor Leiter’s email of July 2, 2014 regarding that pledge." The letter also states, again quite clearly, that there may be legal action against "original signatories" to the September Statement; it does not even suggest legal action against other signatories, whom Leiter has repeatedly exonerated on his blog, pointing out that they had no way of knowing that some claims were false (if, as Leiter claims, they are). Finally, it does seem to me strange that if you are alleged to have made false statements, you respond not by asserting that they are true, but only that they are "lawful." Maybe Jenkins and Ichikawa have admitted to their lawyer that the claims are not true or not entirely true, and so the lawyer took the route of avoiding the question of their truth in favor of claiming they were nonetheless legal?<br /><br />Philosophers should do a better job reading and analyzing what is in dispute here, especially since the lawyer letters are now available and very clear.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com