On 05/10/2011 06:50 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Axil Axil wrote:
I am no expert on this, but doesn’t the first amendment protect Jones
Beene from any possible legal harm?
Not if it is libel. That is not protected speech.
So far I doubt anyone would say it is libel, but I think it would be
wise for Beene to state clearly that he is not actually accusing anyone
of anything. Making comparisons and speaking in hypotheticals is fine. I
myself have often commented that Rossi acts like a scam artist. Anyone
can see the resemblance.
I myself have been the target of libelous personal attacks. Anyone
involved in cold fusion has been. So I am sensitive to the problems this
can cause. For example, people have asserted that I stole or fabricated
the Defense Intelligence Agency report. Putting an official seal on a
fake report would be a serious matter. I would get into trouble if the
authorities believed I did that. Fortunately, I can refer them to the
authors, who will vouch for me.
Obviously, scamming hundreds of millions of dollars would be a far more
serious that writing a fake DIA report! I don't mean to compare the two.
But even rumors about the DIA report have caused me trouble, so I can
just imagine what Defkalion would have to deal with if this rumor gets
around.
Jed, aren't you overreacting? If I remember correctly, I was probably
the cause of that rumour.
In that particular case, I explained clearly and publicly (even in the
same thread) that the only thing I was doing was to publicly express a
doubt a friend of mine transmitted me. I don't see how that could have
caused you any damage. In particular, if you certainly didn't fabricate
that official report.
And to call that public expression of doubt a "libelous personal
attack", with you as "the target"... I would say that's too much about
nothing.
Or were you considering me to accuse me of libel and slander for that at
that time?
I suppose such rumors are bound to circulate, but for goodness sake, let
us not start them here!
A sincere expression of doubt, intended as a warning to others, does not
mean that doubt is based or sustained on evidence. If that were the
case, it wouldn't be a doubt.
Why couldn't we speculate freely about scamming and fraud scenarios? If
other people take that and spread it as a rumour, or undesrtand it out
of context, that's certainly not our problem.
We are here subscribed to talk, among many issues, about cold fusion and
alternative forms of energy. The real ones, but the potentially fake
ones too.
And by the way: If someone shrouds part of his invention in a cloud of
secrecy, citing patentability issues, or whatever, then it's a logical
and reasonable thing to start speculating about potential fraud scenarios.
In my opinion, the "secret catalyst" is at the moment, no different from
the "modified resistor", the "unknown waveform", the "missing diagram"
or the "special magnet".
Regards,
Mauro
