February 1, 2017
This has been filed by James Woods in the Superior Court of California and has been allowed to proceed by the Court. The complete suit is online. It was on the basis of one false anonymous allegation. It was a John Doe lawsuit. Punitive damages in the U. S. can be anything from $100 million to over a billion dollars. The Moreno family has been awarded $1.4 million against a troll. A John Doe suit is filed against an anonymous troll. A troll site that makes numerous death threats (recorded in evidence) and contains many wildly pejorative and defamatory comments is liable to punitive damages of about $100 million or more – called blockbuster damages in the States. For example $150 million in damages have been awarded for tobacco harm. Under the malicious communications act of 1988 in England and Wales it is a criminal offence to post a message that is grossly offensive, contains threats such as death threats, and which contains false allegations such as allegations of mental illness that have been proven by medial opinion to be false. If this abuse is repeated many times, punitive damages are in order. It is also a series of criminal offences. Anonymity will not protect the troll. The professional way to criticise a scientist is to prepare a manuscript, and send it to the scientist, allowing plenty of time for a reply. There must be no anonymity, no name calling, and no abuse. Troll sites are wildly unethical and if an academic uses a troll site, a complaint can be lodged for academic misconduct. Compounding death threats is a criminal offence as well as academic misconduct. I am a U. S. citizen and can consult the California lawyers who filed the lawsuit for James Woods. Class actions can be filed on a contingency basis. In 2013 the European Court of Human Rights found that anonymous trolling is actionable. The carrier is not immune. I support the view that trolling against forms of new energy is a form of genocide, because without new energy, life on earth will vanish. Such laws should be added to the ICC in the Hague and to the Rome Statute on genocide. It is overwhelmingly important never to respond to a troll, keep all the evidence of their activity in a pdf file and give the compete pdf file to the authorities.”
Interesting attempt at misdirection there; a deliberate cashing-in on the two meanings of ‘post’ … or perhaps you cannot discern the difference. The unwary reader is no doubt supposed to think that the Act refers to a blog post whereas it in fact refers to … oh, why not read it for yourself,
If one chooses to go looking for negative free speech, that is not the same as having it sent to one. If one freely admits to having had mental problems in the past, and has actually tried to exploit them in legal disputes (cf Francesco Fucilla and Steriwave), those untrained in psychiatry cannot be blamed for thinking that the problems are ongoing. This is particularly so if the victim espouses well-known nonsenses such as perpetual motion, declares himself (without good reason) to be the greatest physicist in the world and calls himself ‘Lord of Gower’ without having any discernable right to do so. Those who ‘ask for it’ have no right to cry like innocent victims. We would have no problem with answering a scientist who published ideas (that we did not like) in a reputable peer-reviewed journal. But real scientists do not start their own journals, ‘peer’-review their own papers and are the only ones to cite those papers. Even worse is to ‘publish’ papers on an obscure website and then concoct evidence as to how many people ‘read’ them. ‘Scientist is as scientist does …and you do not’. A scientist does not ‘go over the head’ of an academic adversary and complain to the police or the adversary’s employers, in order to win a scientific argument. We happen to think that claiming to have theoretical proof of the viability of classic lunatic-fringe concepts such as perpetual motion and antigravity is a criminal activity … especially if the offender has close ties to, or actively endorses, such scams. And who knows what untold damage is being done to the education of young people who come upon the related websites, see that the promoters are festooned with doctorates … and are unaware that a doctorate is like a driving licence: meaningful only if the holder sticks to the rules that he obeyed in order to obtain it!