From Inside Higher Ed:
Dissent is a way of life in the blogosphere; comments and barbs get traded, and feelings potentially hurt, every day. But one such discussion among three academics has escalated to the point that at least two of them have hired lawyers to try to resolve the dispute.
Paul Deignan is a 41-year-old mechanical engineering Ph.D. candidate, with master’s degrees in math and mechanical engineering, a background in military intelligence and a wife and three kids.
Since taking up writing his own blog, Info Theory, in September 2004, he’s blogged about nuclear annihilation, mutual information between random variables, and suicide bombing. He’s also noted that the M6805 Athlon-based notebook “may be upgraded to 2GB despite the product specs’ claim that 1.25GB is the limit.†In sum, as his site motto says, he likes to apply information theory to the political and social problems of our day.
The blogger from Purdue University also writes with frequency on abortion (in his view, it’s wrong) and blogger etiquette (in his view, it’s complicated)  two seemingly unrelated topics. But in Deignan’s cyberworld, the two have collided in a unique way that may come to haunt his nine-year real-life journey toward a Ph.D.
On November 2, at 9:03 a.m., he reposted an earlier blog entry titled “Thinking Critically About Abortion,†which Bitch Ph.D. had commented on at the time. It said, in part, that Deignan believes that in “our democratic society … all persons have equal intrinsic rights,†and a “person is a person …when that person is alive.†He then asked his readers to comment on his ideas. His comment policy clearly states that he “will make a good faith attempt to reply to all substantive comments.… Comments are only deleted for administrative reasons (spam, etc.).â€Â
Bitch Ph.D.’s comment to that earlier post had stated: “What’s interesting is that you’re trying to frame this debate around the ‘personhood’ of a fetus, while completely overlooking the personhood of women.â€Â
Also on the morning of the 2nd, Deignan visited Bitch Ph.D.’s blog about academe and politics where, by that time, the anonymous blogger had written about her distaste for President Bush’s Supreme Court nominee, Samuel Alito Jr.
Deignan soon responded to Bitch Ph.D. on his own site with a long comment that ended: “Now, note that your definition of sovereignty is actually anti-sovereignty. We are never sovereign if it is by permission of others that allow us to make decisions. Note also that a woman cannot spontaneously create life. She may only nurture preexistent life.â€Â
Then he posted a seemingly innocuous entry on the Bitch Ph.D. site: “Your linking talking points w/o analysis. Already I see several points that are exaggerated and misconstrued without even needing research…â€Â
Feeling that this comment and subsequent ones from Deignan did not qualify as “substantive debate,†she soon deleted his comments and banned him from her site. Her policy states, “Comments are great; obnoxious comments get deleted. Deal.â€Â
She elaborated Wednesday: “I considered his comments trolling, especially the later ones which are now deleted. In those, it became clear to me that he wasn’t interested in a discussion, but in trying to be insulting.â€Â
What might have ended there as an everyday online spat was only the beginning. A frequent visitor to the Bitch Ph.D. site, the University of Northern Iowa history professor Wallace Hettle, felt obliged to defend Bitch Ph.D.’s liberal end of the blogosphere. Hettle found Deignan’s curriculum vita at Info Theory, which lists his academic advisers, the Purdue mechanical engineers Galen King and Peter Meckl, who will play a big part in deciding if he will ultimately receive a Ph.D. Hettle e-mailed them, indicating that Deignan’s comments were “unprofessional†and “contrary to the spirit of free enquiry.†Hettle announced his actions within the comment section of Bitch Ph.D.
“Yes, we received an e-mail,†King confirmed on Wednesday. “It said that Paul was exceeding his bounds, if you will, on what is essentially a private site. He’s been asked to refrain, at least until he’s [graduated from Purdue].â€Â
But escalation, not restraint, has marked the ensuing days, in which Deignan, Hettle and Bitch Ph.D. have hurled accusations of various kinds at each other. Both Deignan and Bitch Ph.D. have hired lawyers. Hettle wouldn’t comment on whether he has done the same.Deignan said he is prepared to begin a lawsuit as soon as possible. He accuses both Hettle and Bitch Ph.D of libeling him  Hettle because of the e-mail he sent to Deignan’s professors, and Bitch Ph.D. for saying that he may have used a technique known as “IP spoofing,†which is a form of hacking, to try to determine who she is. Deignan denies having done that.
Bitch Ph.D., said that she feels somewhat threatened by Deignan. “I don’t know if his attempts to track me down represent a real threat, either in terms of my identity or in terms of a physical threat,†she said via e-mail Wednesday. “I don’t know if what he’s doing counts as cyberstalking. It’s certainly upsetting.â€Â
The untenured professor refused to communicate by phone for fear of revealing her identity, only allowing that she is “American born and bred†and “voted yesterday.â€Â
“I don’t want my blog to embarrass my university or my colleagues,†she said. “I’m outspoken and opinionated on the blog, including about academic issues.
“The secondary reason is that it’s important to me that my personal and political opinions remain distinct from my classroom persona,†she added. “It’s extremely important to me that my students not feel that I approach them with an ‘agenda.’â€Â
Both Deignan and Bitch Ph.D. agree that this situation escalated rapidly when Hettle sent the e-mails to Deignan’s advisers, which Bitch Ph.D. says she wouldn’t have done.
Hettle’s response for comment was curt: “I have received many e-mails on this matter, and that has been disruptive to my work routine,†he said via e-mail Wednesday. “I’m holding office hours at the moment and need to speak to a student.â€Â
Can this kind of dispute be settled in a lawsuit? Lauren Gelman, a lawyer and assistant director of the Center for Internet and Society at Stanford Law School, labeled the situation “complicated†and said that Deignan will have to show how he was harmed and why. “He’s not going to be able to use the legal system to solve the fact that his feelings may have gotten hurt,†she said. But as the Internet continues to evolve, she predicted, “disputes like this are definitely going to become more frequent.â€Â
King, one of Deignan’s advisers, had perhaps the most unique take on the situation in today’s Web-based society: “I don’t understand what blogs are,†he said. “Apparently, though, they can get you in trouble.â€Â
[My emphasis]
In my previous posts on this subject, I noted that my beef is with Dr Wallace Hettle, whose decision to contact Paul’s academic advisor in retaliation (and let’s not kid ourselves, it was retaliatory, not to mention a way for him to slap his academic bona fides on the table with a slightly limp thud) for Paul’s having had the temerity to engage in debate in an open web forum aimed, presumably, at attracting academic discussion, was a serious misuse of his professional status.
A common rejoinder to this argument is that Paul—and right wingers in general—are overreacting to a minor incident that will have no real effect on Paul’s academic standing or career. Here’s a typical comment, from Pharyngula’s PZ Myers:
[…] While I’m not entirely on board with what Hettle did, it’s harmlessâ€â€if I got email about one of my student’s extracurricular activities, I’d just shrug it off.
Of course, if I learned that one of my students was prone to fire off lawsuits over trivialities, that would be cause to kick his annoying ass out of my lab.
[More from Myers here]
Myers, as his comment implies, is himself a professor, and, like many professors, he seems to think his reactions and insights are the norm—that because he would have dismissed a missive from another professor about one of his students, Paul’s academic advisor was likely to do so, at well.
Except that, well, he didn’t, as the article notes—and in fact, that Paul was asked to refrain from further online debate by a representative of his school suggests something along the lines of an official reprimand. Note, too, that Paul’s advisor took at face value information he received from Dr Hettle, and has subsequently framed the issue in the terms Hettle asserted: namely, that Bitch PhD is a “private site” (it certainly is in one sense; but the commenting forum is open to the public), and that Paul may have “exceeded his bounds” simply by engaging in the online debate. Which, how sad is the state of academics when scholars with competing ideologies are counseled to avoid debating one another.
I think we bloggers and blog readers sometimes forget that not everyone understands the online dynamic of the blogosphere; and clearly, Paul’s advisors—at least one of whom was completely unfamiliar with blogs—are not in a great position to make determinations about where Paul’s rhetoric fits within the rhetorical spectrum of blogospheric political commentary.
As I mentioned elsewhere, Bitch PhD has every right to ban Paul and even, if she so wishes, to delete his comments; but Hettle had absolutely no right to contact Deignan’s advisor and put his academic career in jeopardy. And I think we can conclude from his advisors’ combination of confusion and worry that Hettle did just that. That aside, though, it was the potentiality of just such an occurence—regardless of the reaction of Deignan’s advisors specifically — that contribute to a climate in which scholars are forced to hide behind pseudonyms, and wherein personal accountability is (ironically) sacrificed to the totalitarian impulses of the thought police.
So. Still think a lawsuit against Hettle is uncalled for?
(h/t Hubris; a roundup of additional reaction can be found here. I’d like to say that I’m surprised by all the reaction demonizing Paul. But sadly, we’ve reached a point where even baldfaced attempts to ruin someone’s life are met with partisan defensiveness and rancor.)
****
update: The text of the email Dr Wally Hettle sent to Deignan’s dissertation advisor.
I always think a lawsuit is uncalled for. Now, pistols at dawn, or it’s modern-day equivalent the parking-lot ass-kicking, that’s what’s called for.
There shouldn’t be any repercussions for beating the cheese out of a dork like this cow college douchebag, and there’d be fewer lawsuits.
When I get home tonight, I am all over this subject. These kinds of fiasco’s aren’t rare in the blogosphere, and it’s scary to think what kind of precedent could be set by Deignan v. Bitch.
I would still be tempted to fly to N. Iowa and toss Proffesor Nerd down a flight of stairs. But I don’t guess that’s going to happen. Since damage to his reputation (at his own university) is manifestly evident, and absent any other form of institutional justice being available, the civil route seems to be Deignan’s only recourse. If his faculty advisors had indeed laughed the whole thing off as Myers says he would, that would be a different story. But those two guys seem clueless, and have already sanctioned Deignan. I don’t like the lawsuit route much, but if you can’t kick Nerd’s ass, what else are you going to do? And Hettle really looks like a horses ass. They should never be allowed to get away with this kind of petty bs.
“your” – mama
Amazing how far this has gone. It seems that it’s gained a momentum of its own that is now distinct from the individual participants. It’s clear that Hettle is way out of line. His action is out of proportion to anything “done” to him, or said by Paul in the comments of B-PhD.
I have gone to B’s site to comment on that post (as Dogtown), and received much of the same berating as Paul received, although B was very decent. Hettle has been AWOL since the fiasco and not commenting, from what I can tell.
I have been commenting on blogs for a couple years, but have never seen any “etiquette” for this activity. Does one exist, or is it like beauty……….in the eye of the beholder?
Yes, I still think the lawsuit is uncalled for.
Even more uncalled for, however, was any comment to the reporter from Paul’s advisor, who clearly hasn’t investigated the issue enough to give an opinion. I’d like to know exactly what the advisor said to Paul, but I suspect it was something like I don’t care what you say until I start receiving email from douchebags like Hettle. At that point I’m going to ask you to pull back. There aren’t enough hours in the day or years in my life to deal with this crap.
If the situation were reversed, the left would be SCREAMING ”McCarthyism!! Censorship!! Digital brownshirts! NAZI TACTICS!!”, demanding the professor be fired, and we all know that.
I think this incident just highlights the difference.
‘Fraid so, yes. Show me the damages. Not the aggravation, hurt feelings, irritation, outrage, annoyance, angst, rage, sorrow, frustration, resentment, anger, and fury, but the real damage that Paul has suffered as a result of Hettle’s admittedly outrageous bullying tactics. You can’t.
And despite Paul’s efforts to create a case of “defamation per se,” where damages are presumed, I don’t see that either. Nobody has seriously accused Paul of committing a crime, or seriously contended that he’s a bad mechanical engineer, or said that he had a horrible disease. Take a look at
Law.com‘s definition of defamation per se. I just don’t see it.
None of this should be construed as a defense of Hettle. But when I was practicing law, I saw LOTS AND LOTS of really horrible behavior that wasn’t actionable. This is like that.
Hettle is a self-righteous jerk. His actions were completely wrong. That said, a lawsuit by Deignan is completely uncalled for and almost certainly bordering on frivolous. (Read Deignan’s website info-theory.blogspot.com) I would suggest that Mr. Deignan’s rantings on his blog are doing far more damage to his PhD prospects and the prospects of getting a job than anything Dr. Hettle or BitchPhD have done. And frankly, Mr. Deignan’s attempt to discover and publish BitchPhD’s identity is as loathsome as Dr. Hettle’s actions. Didn’t we just go through this with Juan Non-volokh earlier this year? I guess some kids never learn how to play in the sandbox.
But when I was practicing law, I saw LOTS AND LOTS of really horrible behavior that wasn’t actionable. This is like that.
Yup.
It was the right thing to criticize Hettle on PW and elsewhere, though.
Even on other boards, you still make me laugh, Dave.
This illustrates one reason I comment anonymously. It’s a shame and sad that mental weasles like Dr. Hettle can have such an influence without real fear of reprimand (the lawsuit won’t go anywhere in my belief). But putting my name on my mostly inane comments just isn’t worth the risk.
Wrong:
I believe that’s accusing him of a federal crime.
You mean other than restrictions on his speech placed on him by officials at his university (“He’s been asked to refrain, at least until he’s [graduated from Purdue].â€Â), and the actual accusations of criminal acts (hacking) by Bitch Ph.D.?
Is a lawsuit uncalled for? Well… there’s no legal basis for one, as far as I can tell. Certainly with respect to bitchphd, I’m pretty sure there’s just no there there, but I can’t identify the claim one would make with respect to Hettle.
Now, what Hettle did was unquestionably unprofessional and thoroughly inappropriate. No less a rancorous partisan than Atrios acknowledged that. But bringing a suit one knows to be legally meritless isn’t thus justified, and I’m pretty sure this would fall in that category.
What I don’t understand is where you get so outraged. You claim not to understand whence the reaction to “demonize” Paul (surely an exaggeration). I cannot believe that anyone who’s gone to his own site could be confused by that reaction; the guy is a genuine kook. (Furthermore, he’s a wimp, in my own personal opinion. Living in America means you don’t get to complain when your feelings get hurt.)
Eh. I don’t think any of the questions involved are particularly tricky: (a) bitchphd got ban-happy and shut down a more-or-less innocuous line of questioning; (b) Hettle went way over the line of propriety but (as far as I can tell) didn’t break any laws; and (c) while Paul has a legitimate right to complain about Hettle, the lawsuit against him is overkill and the lawsuit against bitchphd is pure harassment.
Why do people have to demonize Paul? For the mirror-image of the partisanship that makes other people make Paul look like a terrific victim.
Good stuff. Very entertaining.
John S,
What if Deignan was an antiwar protestor waving an “Impeach Bush” sign and a righty professor called his advisers and said that was inappropriate behavior? That’d be hunky-dory, I’m sure.
Turing: defense, as in there is none.
Actually, the damages are pretty clear. Paul has apparently been sanctioned and instructed to refrain from engaging in further online debate or risk being thrown out of grad school. What’s the value of that? Damages for defamation need not be purely economic. The problem, however, is whether that sanction was the result of any defamatory statement in Hettle’s letter to Paul’s advisors. An assertion that Paul overstepped his bounds in a private discussion is mere opinion and would not support a finding of defamation.
However, Hettle accused Paul of sending threatening emails. If true, that would be a crime. If false, it’s defamation per se, for which damages are presumed.
Paul also mentions the fact he could be googled by an employer and immediately they would find unrefuted allegations he had threatened someone and IP spoofed. Are they going to investigate the accuracy of those claims? Or just move on to the next candidate?
And also, it should be pointed out that Bitch PhD. and Hettle can get the lawsuit removed at any time by simply retracting and apologizing. So they’re at least as immature as he is.
Let’s say you receive 2 unsolicited emails at work within 12 minutes (from someone who he has no prior email contact with). The second of those emails contained language: “I would like to offer you the chance to save yourself some professional embarrassment. I can give you 30 minutes to reply with your decision.” Might a reasonable person conclude that the emails, taken as a whole, are “threatening email”.
What specific threats did Hettle allege?
A promised punch in the nose is one thing. A “threat” to pursue available legal remedies to a public wrong is something Paul is entitled to make.
I think many are misrepresnting the nature of the censure that Paul received. In Paul’s rundown of the article he says about the censure: “I am reading this information for the first time in this article as well as the request to restrain (probably nothing more than a matter of clarification of an earlier request to be more diplomatic after having received Wally’s e-mail).”
There is a really big element to damages here that bears noting (and in this case, the damage may not be recoverable). If you’ll note, the guy intends to go into the defense sector.
In the world of defense, a high-level clearance is at least as valuable as a master’s degree – especially since it can be scotched for essentially obscure reasons. This whole kerfuffle, and the fact that now that it is written is now functionally, a matter of record, is where the big problems come in.
When it goes to trial, the difficulty will be in making a persuasive case that this whole episode will reduce his chances of getting a clearance.
That wasn’t as big an issue at the outset, but now is a bit more problematic. A google search by someone sufficiently savvy will give a fairly large number of results. As this continues to gain traction, the portion of those hits that a deprecatory in their remarks regarding Paul will rise. After a critical point, a given search on his name will be equally likely to show very negative commentary as anything else.
Now, the extent to which this will affect clearance procedures depends heavily on the people conducting the investigation. Certainly it will make the process prohibitively slow, simply because of the mass of data (in the form of comments, etc.) that may have to be sorted through. If the person is not well-versed in ‘internet culture’ then their is also a substantial chance that this will be quite negative in its impact.
All in all (and given the tendency of clearers to error on the side of caution as well as be exhaustive in their research), I would say that the fight that this has metatastized in to probably means that we will be unable to get a job in the defense sector.
Hmmm.
1. If someone makes unfounded allegations that can affect my employment or even my career, then that’s clear grounds for referral to a lawyer.
2. If I contact someone to let them know that my next step is a lawyer and that there are clear and simple remedies to avoid that, then that is clearly not a “threat”. It is a simple communication designed to avoid a lawsuit, nothing less.
3. Hettle is an asshole.
4. Bitch Phd is clearly a coward.
5. The concept that academia is a forum of open discussion and exchange of ideas is a laughable nostrum.
True enough that not all threats are criminal. I guess the question would be whether Hettle implied more ominous threats. After all, Bitch PhD would have us believe she thinks its possible that she’s being stalked and physically threatened.
I agree it’s unlikely that Paul would win, but that’s distinctly different from claiming he has no case.
I don’t see that there’s any case based on Hettle’s email to Paul’s advisors, however.
Hettle’s email, though deserving of ridicule and scorn, most likely contained nothing but Hettle’s opinion that Paul overstepped his bounds and acted in an inappropriate manner for a PhD student. Nothing actionable there, regardless of any negative repercussions on Paul’s career. That’s just standard asshole conduct.
I don’t see that there’s any case based on Hettle’s email to Paul’s advisors, however.
Sure there is, damage to professional reputation. If Hettle tells his advisers he acted unprofessionally, that could impact future earnings.
Believe me, there is a ton of case law on damage to professionl reputation.
That does it!
I’ll just stick with my lowly Bachelors and forget about graduate work. Apparently advanced degrees turn you into an asshole or a bitch.
Laura writes;
Both Bitch and Wally accused Paul of sending them threatening emails. Inasmuch as threats are frequently actionable, it’s not a particularly big stretch to argue that Bitch and Wally have seriously accused Paul of a crime.
TW: feel, as in, FEEL the sweet balm of HEEEEAAAAALING.
Bphd banned Paul’s IP address.
Paul got a new IP address to get around the ban.
Bphd called this behavior “spoofing”, which it technically isn’t. But, you can see how Bphd got confused.
Hettle remains a dickhead who won’t lose his job.
Neither Bphd nor I understand DHCP.
Damage to professional reputation is a type of damages, not a cause of action. The cause of action in this case is defamation. If the email didn’t contain false statements there’s no defamation claim, regardless of any real damage to his professional reputation. I’m pretty confident there’s no applicable limitation on Hettle’s ability to convey true statements or his own opinion regarding someone’s conduct.
I should say defamation per se not only applies to allegations of criminal acts, but also to statements injuring a person in his office, business, profession, or occupation. That would seem to apply here. However, any statements must be knowingly false assertions of fact, not mere opinion or hyperbole. A letter accusing him of conduct unbecoming a PhD student is mere opinion. Now if the email directed Paul’s professors back to the Bitch PhD site where there were false allegations of “threats,” then we might be able to connect false statements to damages.
Wow, this whole episode sure brought a lot of lawyer-wannabes out of the woodwork.
“Still think a lawsuit against Hettle is uncalled for?”
Yes.
Having an insider’s view of courts, I can assure you the following line of thought is extremely faulty:
“X did something bad (perhaps even legally actionable) to Y;
therefore, Y should sue X.”
The courts are a pretty bad way to solve problems like this. Granted, it’s a better system than guns and clubs, but not by much.
I’ve witnessed many, many lawsuits. Only a small fraction of them work out well for the plaintiffs, merits notwithstanding.
Oh, by the way, anybody who thinks this is a meritorious lawsuit has absolutely NO grounds to argue for “tort reform.”
I’m not sold on the lawsuit, personally. But I certainly think that Paul is within his rights to raise a fuss.
Why did he answer the email? What a utensil.
<blockquote>Bitch Ph.D. for saying that he may have used a technique known as “IP spoofing,†which is a form of hacking, to try to determine who she is. Deignan denies having done that. </blockquote
Translation: I’m a history prof and don’t know shit about computers and neither does the $9per hour tech/friend’s kid/blog commentor who looked at my logs and told me that IP spoofing was a way to find out who I am.
All the same, if Deignan didn’t think he’d get banned by Bitch phd, he needs to be sentenced to only blog in the company of his wife. Who will say things like, “why would you say that when these people don’t care.” and “why are you wasting time with those awful people when you could be painting the kitchen.” and “she calls herself ‘Bitch’, why do you want to have anything to do with her?”
Wally’s an asshole, probably the asshole who came up with the “ip spoofing” BS.
Why do even bother to ask questions, Dave? You seem to be content pre-supposing exactly how everyone thinks.
In RE: IP changes.
My IP at work is static. My IP at home is dynamic, as Verizon cycles their DHCP servers over either Friday, Saturday, or Sunday night. An IP address for my home typically lasts a week. By random chance, I might get the same IP back, but I have no control over that. Neither does Paul, and really, neither does his ISP unless they tie a sign-on to an IP address. That can still probably be defeated merely by turning the DSL modem off and back on or turning any at home router/wireless base off and back on.
How do I know? Been there, done that. Sometimes DHCP servers lose connection entirely and the help[less] desk will TELL you to do that.
Paul states in one of his most recent posts that he was conveniently thwarting BPhD’s ban with the convenience of DCHP. From a layperson’s end, it may certainly look like IP spoofing.
That said, B has already clarified that she meant the term “spoofing” in the casual sense, not the legal and/or technical sense. Remember, we’re on Protein Wisdom where words mean something.
Also, with Paul characterizing his continued visits to her blog despite her attempts at a ban as “having fun with her,” it appears he was indeed “spoofing” by that definition.
Also, remind me not to use the word “convenience,” or any derivitive of, twice in one freakin’ sentence.
Jesus.
I think Paul and the “Professor” should be required to duke it out in the comments section of Bitch Ph.D’s blog, but rather than substantive arguments, they must only use personal insults, epithets, eighth grade pussy jokes, and references to female body parts. Then, after about three days of that, the “Professor’s” balls should be removed with a red-hot pair of pruning sheers, then sewn into his mouth with metal thread, then he should be placed in a public stocks on his campus with his head painted red and a sign hung around his neck which says: “I’m a Fucking Asshole, and I Ate My Own Balls, Because I Tried To Destroy Someone Out of Limp-Dick Liberal Spite.”
Or, in the alternative, Paul should sue “Prof.” should be sued until he is utterly bankrupted, and left penniless by the side of the road after his lawyers take everything from him after losing his case. Really, it’s a toss-up which will be worse, considering what litigation like this ends up costing the clients. Lawyers love this stuff, though.
I don’t know about the rest of you, but in the construction business, the feeling is that if a situation has deteriorated to the point where lawyers need to get involved, you’ve already lost.
Mahan Atma
Consider that some “lawyer-wannabes” might actually be lawyers.
It seems to me that Deignan is on solid ground in suing Hettle. Wally was trying to harm his professional standing, and he apparently succeeded.
Deignan shouldn’t sue the Bitch however, as she didn’t do enough against him and he should have known what she would do.
Bitch should be extremely irritated with Hettle trying to be her protector riding on his white horse, being an angry feminist and all, so she should sue Hettle too.
Hettle was being an asshole. Paul’s lawsuit against him might be justified – that’s not just equivocation, it’s hard to say – but sure isn’t an open-and-shut case. But going after Dr. B for accusing him of spoofing? (It seems unlikely to me that spoofing is actually a crime, but more importantly, as others have pointed out, it was probably an honest mistake, and so on…)
Jesus. When I see some 4’6” kid with thick glasses get beat up in high school by a senior, it doesn’t matter if he was being a bit mouthy to the guy who did it, I’d feel sorry for him anyway… right up until he kicks a bystander in the crotch for looking at him funny.
Argh. Hope that metaphor wasn’t too awkward. For reference, little kid = Paul, senior = Wally, bystander = Dr. B.
Hmmmm.
Ahh. Slashdot.com
Yes. That punishment is a bit severe, but definitely appropriate.
Randy: Fair enough. In the lawyer business, we feel that if we actually have to hire a building contractor to build our new house for us (every three years), rather than just throwing piles of filthy lucre at some already-built mansion on a hill in the center of town, then, damnit, we aren’t charging our clients enough!
I have asked, repeatedly, on BitchPhD’s blog that she clarify what she meant by “IP Spoofing.” Her mature response?
Hans.
Because it isn’t my fucking job to jump when you say so.
Got it?
Good.
bitchphd | Email | Homepage | 11.09.05 – 5:08 pm | #
Lauren, just a reminder for you: Don’t use the word “convenience,†or any derivative thereof, twice in one freakin’ sentence.
Bitch claimed that Paul was avoiding the ban by “IP Spoofing.” I have yet to see ANY evidence of anything resembling this accusation. She has pointedly refuse to clarify her comments, though I would understand a “technical” misuse of the term.
Bitch claimed that deleted comments contained an “implied” threat against her. I asked her to further characterize this “implied threat” and she has refused.
Wally communicated these alleged falsehoods to Paul’s advisors at least in part on Bitch’s comments. Is she off the hook? I certainly have more sympathy for her, but if she had reason to believe everything she wrote, then I don’t see a problem.
“I asked her to further characterize this “implied threat†and she has refused.”
No kidding. If she has a lawyer, he/she probably told her not to talk about it.
Are you a lawyer? You certainly are full of advice. If so, why don’t you tell Mr. Deignan how foolish it is to talk about all this in such great detail on his blog?
Paul definitely should chew a piece off of Professor Payback, or at least make a strong attempt to do so. Maybe it will convince Hettle to think twice before using academic reputation/credentials/position to engineer petty revenge.
For the non-academics in the crowd: emails, letters, and phone calls like Hettle’s are often given significant weight. As someone who has sat through many residency-match meetings during my medical academic days, I can tell you that a personal phone call and/or contact (either positive or negative) can greatly shift someone’s rank order on the match list. An allegation of “unprofessional” conduct is particularly damaging, and might get a person struck from the rank-list entirely.
A personal note from a fellow professor or doctor is taken very seriously in academia. Paul certainly knows this… and that’s probably a large part of what’s driving this lawsuit.
I’d be madder than hell if I were him.
As long as Deignan only sues to gain that which he had previously and rightfully requested (a public retraction and apology) and to recover court costs, then the lawsuit is perfectly appropriate and I applaud Deignan for bringing it should he do so. The initial incidents by all parties are trivial, as is Deignan’s demand for public retraction and apology. The potential repercussions for Deignan if his trivial, but more importantly rightful, demands are not met, are themselves quite material, including negative consequences on his academic and professional careers (as noted in others’ comments above). Should these negative consequences occur prior to the resolution of the suit, then seeking further damages would also be appropriate.
The courts are the only proper place for resolving these sorts of matters. Mahan Atma commented above that this notion is in contrast to the idea of needed tort reforms. Tort reform means restricting damage awards for suits of this nature, among other things. If more people would sue for principle instead of principal (court costs exempted) then there would be no need for ‘tort reform’. Lets see if Deignan sues for a pile of cash for his troubles before passing judgement ourselves.
Yep. And it’s all rather amateurish, as nobody has even tried to (i) identify the jurisdiction in which the suit would be brought; (ii) seek to identify the law that the forum court would apply; or (iii) identify the elements of libel under the law in (ii), which are all predicate steps to determining whether Deignan’s threatened suit has any merit. And has nobody noticed that Deignan continues to blather on about it at his website, making damaging admissions left and right, when even the most hackish lawyer would have immediately told him to take his site down?
Please. Anybody who sues “on principle” is wasting the court’s time.
Courts operate on limited resources. Believe it or not, they actually have serious cases to deal with. People get injured for real: Killed, paralyzed, loss of physical functions, thousands of dollars of medical bills, major loss of property, you name it. Then there are criminal cases with real victims – rape and murder.
Please explain to me why Deignan’s petty case deserves to have the judge take time and resources away from someone who lost a relative, their children, their legs, or their home.
Get real.
If Deignan manages to a get a lawyer to file this suit, some judge is going to be mighty irritated, and rightfully so. I hope that lawyer gets hit with sanctions so fast his head spins.
Any decent lawyer is going to tell this guy to suck it up and go home.
It’s obvious–Paul should retain the pro bono services of several heavyweight attorneys like Patterico and sue the hell out of Bitch and Hettle, slandering cowards if ever there were two. If Paul does not prevail, he will at least gain satisfaction from the enormous legal debts incurred by anonomyous Bitch and Professor Sow Town.
Unless his lawsuit is frivolous, in which case he will be paying those debts and the “heavyweight attorneys” will risk disciplinary action. It’s obvious.
If the attorneys are indeed heavy enough, they certainly will be able to avoid filing “frivolous” lawsuits. And I believe Hettle’s actions and Bitch’s comments were clearly malicious.
“If the attorneys are indeed heavy enough, they certainly will be able to avoid filing “frivolous†lawsuits.”
No “heavyweight” attorney would touch this case with a ten foot stick, much less take it pro bono. If you don’t believe me, just wait and watch.
I give up. I thought “heavyweight attorneys like Patterico” was a dead giveaway to the tongue in cheek. Paul’s real solution is obvious: take that SOB Hettle to a cow pasture and throttle him (anonymously), and really find out Bitch’s identity, then send emails to her faculty advisors about her multiple personality disorder. And finally, stop annoying people.
“I give up. I thought “heavyweight attorneys like Patterico†was a dead giveaway to the tongue in cheek.”
Oh! Sorry.
I have no idea who “Patterico” is.
Is there some reason both (or all) of you have insisted on posting not just anonymously, but namelessly? It sure is complicating things for everybody else out here trying to read this thread.
Hmm.
I’m guilty too.
What’s the deal?
If the courts are so busy and so hate frivolous cases, then why do we keep getting cases about the pladge of allegiance?
C’mon. This is someone’s free speech being stifled and possible damage to their reputation.
People sue for much less and win.
If the judge doesn’t like the case, tell Hettle to retract and apologize and it’s done.
Apart from defamation, would Paul Deignan have a viable claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress against Wallace Hettle arising from Hettle’s emails to Deignan’s advisors?
p.s. Small Claims Court would seem like an appropriate venue and they can’t be THAT busy.
“If the courts are so busy and so hate frivolous cases, then why do we keep getting cases about the pladge of allegiance?”
Putting aside the question of whether pledge of allegiance cases are frivolous, courts get frivolous cases because people do file them.
Just because courts get these cases does not mean they should be filed.
“C’mon. This is someone’s free speech being stifled and possible damage to their reputation.”
Yeah right. And you’re a lawyer too, right?
I think that Hettle crossed the line in his attempt to intimidate Deignan, but I don’t see enough for a lawsuit.
That said, this story reminds me of a story about a guy who got ripped off buying a laptop on eBay. Afterward, he trolled the eBay site looking for sales similar to the one that got him, reporting them to eBay authorities. One day he got an IM simply stating that “for $600 you can be killed,” showing that making anonymous enemies isn’t always completely without risk.
Just one quick observation…the remark from the advisor “he’s been asked to refrain” seems to be open to interpretation. As I read the e-mail from Hettle and the follow up remarks from the advisor, I took “refrain” to mean being confrontational to the point of being asked to leave another individuals site.
I could be wrong but I think logically an advisor would be concerned about questions of “collegiality”. Again, pure speculation but I’d bet if asked, they did not mean to refrain from having his own blog, having his opinion, disagreeing with whomever he encounters…but definitely to keep it reasonably civil.
Lastly, the quote said “asked” him to refrain…doesn’t look like an imposed ban, just a request to bring it down a notch. The fact that Paul continued his blog activity seems to imply he had the same understanding. Given his apparent legalistic perspective…if it were a ban, I would see that as a far better legal claim against Purdue than the one he is pursuing against Bitch PhD…and I’ve seen nothing to indicate he walks away from a fight.
Just my two cent observation…
I’m on Paul’s side, but I have to say that if he’s worried about clearance why does he have a blog under his own name?
Well, i understand where he’s coming from. An engineer is only as god as his name. Often (almost always) the engineer is the last name on the list, the one that you point teh finger at when it all goes pear shaped. As a result, it is not only a good idea, but imperative that what you do reflect your beliefs and actions accordingly. You ask why post under your own real name, well, if you don’t and it is found out that you are doing something … less than ethical, or whatever… not only were you being bad law-wise which can be and often is reprimanded, but you have tried to conceal it, which in engineering ethics is a BIIIIIG no-no. screwing up or breaking teh law is one thing, but not fessing up to it kills your credibility, and thus your entire stock in trade.
i read through both sides of this as far as it goes (well the primaries, i havent’ read the umpty-dozed armchair pundits… present host excluded.) and i have to say that i would probably do the same thing. this case DOES constitute libel and in this case, since it apears that he’s not going into teaching but instead looking for actual work as…gasp, an engineer… that maybe, just maybe his name might be WORTH something, and he wants to keep it that way.
This hits very close to home for me because i’m an engineering student meself and i take the fairly rigorous study and implications of engineering ethics rather seriously. Take a look at the ASE ethics guidelines sometime, and think how much fun it would be to maintain a good name when shit is hitting the fan. look at the order in which you have responsiblities to your company, the environment and the health and wellbeing of the public. It’s some deep shit there.
I’m not a litigous person meself, i much prefer the baseball bats at dawn kind of thing, but in this particular case, i’d be looking for a lawyer too. Just my $0.02.
tw: court as in i’m courtin disaster up in here.
I can see how Deignan’s threat to sue may have hurt his chances of getting what he wanted without legal action; I wouldn’t dare apologize to someone who’s threatening to sue me, much less give any indication that I think I may have been in the wrong. In other words, if you want to sue me, ‘bring it on, Plaintiff Boy’.
In late retort: Prosecutors do not file criminal cases in civil court. The courts’ resources are paid for by me and every other taxpayer. If I want to sue someone for anything at all, that’s my right. It’s up to me to get a qualified, competent lawyer to advise me on making the decision to sue someone. The court exists to accept my filings and grant me my day in court, if only to have my suit thrown out at the first hearing. If the court thinks I’m wasting its time, and if that’s punishable, I put myself at risk by bothering. If my case is so ‘petty’, then it shouldn’t take much of the court’s ‘precious’ time to deal with it, so they can get on to awarding damages to one-legged Billy who lost his leg, his mom, and his home because of someone’s negligence, even if by filing his case Billy is depriving Susie her day in court, since she lost both legs, an arm, two parents and a sister, her home and her school and her bicycle, and got cancer. It’s not a zero-sum game.
“ If I want to sue someone for anything at all, that’s my right.”
No it isn’t. Filing frivolous lawsuits out of spite is called “malicious prosecution”, and it’s illegal.
“If my case is so ‘petty’, then it shouldn’t take much of the court’s ‘precious’ time to deal with it…”
Unfortunately there are a lot of people out there like you who think they have a right to file any lawsuit they want.
I clerked for a federal judge, and I spent a huge amount of time dealing with lawsuits from people like you. You can’t just throw them in the trash, as much as you’d like to; you have to deal with them properly, and it takes a lot of time.
I had a death penalty case on my desk. A man’s life was on the line. That case alone (one of hundreds I managed) had enough documents and filings to fill up a small office. I had to come in on the weekends to deal with it, and if I’d had more time to spare, I would have spent in on that case.
Unfortunately I had to spend hours dealing with bullshit cases like this one.
But do tell, since you pretend know so much about the courts, what are your credentials? Are you a lawyer? Ever worked for a judge? If not, then what basis do you have for making your statements about how courts work?
“Prosecutors do not file criminal cases in civil court.”
Oh, and by the way, my judge handled both civil and criminal cases.
“I think that Hettle crossed the line in his attempt to intimidate Deignan, but I don’t see enough for a lawsuit.”
When all is said and done, and all the emails come to light, I think this case may surprise a lot people. Just take a look at this email that Hettle sent to Paul:
Wally’s story on his communications to Paul’s advisors is conflicting (see my blog for an analysis). If we are to believe everything Wally has posted, there are at least two other emails that have not been made public. If they contain anything like the above email, I think things are going to get pretty serious (legally and perhaps professionally) for Wally Hettle.
I’m afraid Deignan lost the moral high ground as soon as he filed the lawsuit. If I were the chair of a department, it wouldn’t shake me one bit to hear that a potential job candidate is a political activist who has ruffled some feathers (quite insignificant feathers at that), but a job candidate quick to file a lawsuit would certainly catch my attention. Come review time for tenure, if the dude doesnt get tenure, its like asking for a lawsuit. Most college departments are full of eccentric butt-wipes. You can even argue there is a correlation between that and department rank, but why invite lawsuit-happy butt-wipes into the department?
I’m afraid Paul is digging his own grave here.
“If we are to believe everything Wally has posted, there are at least two other emails that have not been made public.”
Are you a lawyer? If so, then surely you would know that if “A” sends a private communication to “B”, that does not give “B” a claim for libel against “A”; rather, “A” must “publish” the communication to some third party.
So, did “A” publish this communication to the public?
Listen: You’re sympathetic to this guy; that’s fine, I feel sorry for him too.
But guess what: You’re not doing any favors by egging him on. In fact, you’re inadvertently causing harm to him and his family.
Stop and think about that. Would you perform surgery on him? Or prescribe drugs for him? Or advise him that he needs Surgery X, or Drug Y?
No? Then why would you fuel his desire to file a lawsuit?
Mahan,
Read the post again, maybe two times if that is what it takes. Here, I will even quote the essential sentence for you:
“If they contain anything like the above email, I think things are going to get pretty serious (legally and perhaps professionally) for Wally Hettle.”
My point is that Wally Hettle said some pretty outlandish and unhinged things to Paul, and there is reason to believe he sent multiple emails. So, what is in the other emails?
Oh, right, the other emails, I forgot about them…
Forget it… waste of time… why am I here…
Nope, any decent lawyer will find out if this guy’s taken Phen-fen, Vioxx, or been exposed to Agent Orange, bought a CD between 1986 and 1996, used Ticketmaster, smoked, checked to see if his car was a lemon, got busted for DUI, slipped and fell in a big box store, got skin cancer due to the ozone hole, had the wrong leg removed during heart surgery, won or had a friend win the lottery, needs a divorce or got hurt in an accident, spilled his coffee on the way over, ate too much junk food and is fat as hell or recieved a leak of confidential information from a source in the current administration.
Charge him 80 bucks and then send him home.
Why would someone who clerked for a federal judge (and attacks others for not having the credentials to discuss Deignan’s case) think that the fact that United States District Court or Circuit Court judges handle both criminal and civil matters contradicts the statement “prosecutors do not file cases in civil court?”
That depends—am I under oath?
“I give up. I thought “heavyweight attorneys like Patterico†was a dead giveaway to the tongue in cheek.”
I’m not that heavy!
I think Wally is a prick. But I’m not sure I’d choose a lawsuit as the way to handle this, if I were Paul.