Michael Shermer Tries To Ban Book

On one side, an attempt to use the courts to revoke free speech.

On the other, a vile liar-by-trade, whose speech is not worth hearing.

I don't like either of them, I hope they both lose.
 
ehcks said:
On one side, an attempt to use the courts to revoke free speech.

On the other, a vile liar-by-trade, whose speech is not worth hearing.

I don't like either of them, I hope they both lose.
Click to expand...

Shermer was in the wrong here, and the case has been dropped. Shermer clearly misrepresented things to his own lawyers.
 
That's somehow important? Shermer called him a racist instead of an anti-semite and the guy has held onto it for all these years even though Shermer has apologized to him on numerous occasions? Film at 11:00. :rolleyes:
 
When I clicked on the link in the OP I got a malware warning:
Access has been blocked as the threat Mal/ExpJS-BH has been found on this website.
Click to expand...

What's up?
 
Mondial said:
The publisher of Skeptic Magazine Michael Shermer has taken legal action to try and halt the distribution of a new book by David Cole called Republican Party Animal - www.countercontempt.com/archives/5232
Click to expand...


The link is to David Cole's page. Cole was a Holocaust denier and has not been known in the past for his honesty. A skeptic would want to hear Shermer's side of the story before drawing any conclusions.

Doghouse Reilly said:
Shermer was in the wrong here, and the case has been dropped. Shermer clearly misrepresented things to his own lawyers.
Click to expand...

Citation (with link please)?

ETA:

The only information I can find about this is from little David Cole running around the internet whining about what a bad man Shermer is. I did find this, however, from The Guardian of May 3 of last year.

Hollywood conservative unmasked as notorious Holocaust revisionist.

Republican Party Animals operator David Stein says he is really David Cole, and that he still holds controversial views

To those who knew him, or thought they knew him, he was a cerebral, fun-loving gadfly who hosted boozy gatherings for Hollywood's political conservatives. David Stein brought right-wing congressmen, celebrities, writers and entertainment industry figures together for shindigs, closed to outsiders, where they could scorn liberals and proclaim their true beliefs.

Over the past five years Stein's organisation, Republican Party Animals, drew hundreds to regular events in and around Los Angeles, making him a darling of conservative blogs and talkshows. That he made respected documentaries on the Holocaust added intellectual cachet and Jewish support to Stein's cocktail of politics, irreverence and rock and roll.

There was just one problem. Stein was not who he claimed. His real name can be revealed for the first time publicly – a close circle of confidants only found out the truth recently – as David Cole. And under that name he was once a reviled Holocaust revisionist who questioned the existence of Nazi gas chambers. He changed identities in January 1998.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/may/03/david-stein-cole-holocaust-revisionist
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Okay, I'm sorry - I read this thread, and it's like walking into the middle of a very long conversation with no clue or context. Can I get a neutral summary of what the heck the problem is that this thread's supposed to be about?
 
Doghouse Reilly said:
The link in the OP contains all of the communications between Cole and Shermer's lawyers. Seems very clear cut to me.
Click to expand...

And since it's from such an unimpeachable source like Cole we must accept it as true and not give Shermer the least benefit of the doubt? I don't give page hits to frauds and Holocaust deniers like Cole. Perhaps someone could quote some relevant portions of the alleged exchange between the attorneys.

Checkmite said:
Okay, I'm sorry - I read this thread, and it's like walking into the middle of a very long conversation with no clue or context. Can I get a neutral summary of what the heck the problem is that this thread's supposed to be about?
Click to expand...

Not neutral, but it's about people accepting what they read on the internet at face value no matter its provenance .
 
Last edited:
Walter Ego said:
And since it's from such an unimpeachable source like Cole we must accept it as true and not give Shermer the least benefit of the doubt? I don't give page hits to frauds and Holocaust deniers like Cole. Perhaps someone could quote some relevant portions of the alleged exchange between the attorneys.



Not neutral, but it's about people accepting what they read on the internet at face value no matter its provenance .
Click to expand...

Don't be ridiculous, that's not what the thread is about. I'm not going to do the work of collecting the relevant information for you when it's readily available. It's very clear that the exchange between Cole and the attorneys is legitimate, but since you refuse to look at it, you'd hardly be expected to be aware of that. If it's not, we'll soon be hearing about Shermer suing Cole for defamation and slander. I'm not holding my breath.

I don't really see why you're participating in a thread for which you refuse to read the relevant source material.
 
Checkmite said:
Okay, I'm sorry - I read this thread, and it's like walking into the middle of a very long conversation with no clue or context. Can I get a neutral summary of what the heck the problem is that this thread's supposed to be about?
Click to expand...

The links posted by Walter Ego seem to be fairly illuminating.

Take your pick, the left-wing Guardian or right-wing Washington Times.
 
Puppycow said:
The links posted by Walter Ego seem to be fairly illuminating.

Take your pick, the left-wing Guardian or right-wing Washington Times.
Click to expand...

The links don't have a whole lot to do with the topic of the thread, actually. The subject isn't whether Cole is an admirable person or not, it's the issue between Cole and Shermer.
 
Doghouse Reilly said:
It's very clear that the exchange between Cole and the attorneys is legitimate, but since you refuse to look at it, you'd hardly be expected to be aware of that. If it's not, we'll soon be hearing about Shermer suing Cole for defamation and slander. I'm not holding my breath.

I don't really see why you're participating in a thread for which you refuse to read the relevant source material.
Click to expand...

I'm willing to read the "source material" but I'd rather have it from a more credible source that Cole/Stein, a known liar and fraud. Until then, as a skeptic, I'll continue to give Shermer the benefit of the doubt.
 
Walter Ego said:
I'm willing to read the "source material" but I'd rather have it from a more credible source that Cole/Stein, a known liar and fraud. Until then, as a skeptic, I'll continue to give Shermer the benefit of the doubt.
Click to expand...

If Cole is lying, then I hope Shermer sues his ass. He would certainly have plenty to go on.
 
Puppycow said:
The links posted by Walter Ego seem to be fairly illuminating.

Take your pick, the left-wing Guardian or right-wing Washington Times.
Click to expand...

Neither has anything whatsoever to do with Michael Shermer. The information isn't the least bit useful.
 
Originally Posted by Puppycow

The links posted by Walter Ego seem to be fairly illuminating.

Take your pick, the left-wing Guardian or right-wing Washington Times
Click to expand...

Checkmite said:
Neither has anything whatsoever to do with Michael Shermer. The information isn't the least bit useful.
Click to expand...

It goes to the lack of creditability of David Cole who is the sole source of the allegations against Shermer. Excuse me for being a skeptic but I'd like some independent verification before I uncritically accept the word of a Holocaust denier and liar like Cole.
 
Last edited:
The language that Cole uses on his own webpage is more than sufficient to establish his lack of credibility; that's why I'm looking for an alternate source explaining exactly what's supposed to have happened. I don't even like Shermer, and I'm still not inclined to trust anything this guy says.
 
As untrustworthy as Cole may be (I personally have never heard of him before this thread), I find it extremely unlikely that the communications posted on his website between himself and Shermer's lawyers are in any way fraudulent. He may be a despicable person, but I would assume he is savvy enough (judging from the descriptions of the way he avoided detection for so long) to not get himself into legal trouble in such a blatant way.

Knowing what I know of Shermer, on the other hand, it is very easy to believe that the communications published on Cole's website are completely valid as represented by Cole.

Again, if Cole were lying about this, it would soon enough be public record, because Shermer would have grounds for a slam-dunk lawsuit against Cole, which I have no doubt he would be eager to file.
 
Last edited:
I don't know much about the facts in this case, but Cole repeatedly, mockingly, calls Doctor Michael Shermer "Shermy" or "Mikey" in his rants. Not being respectful doesn't strengthen his position.
 
Doghouse Reilly said:
As untrustworthy as Cole may be (I personally have never heard of him before this thread), I find it extremely unlikely that the communications posted on his website between himself and Shermer's lawyers are in any way fraudulent.
Click to expand...

We're talking about a Holocaust denier. Fraud and lies aren't the exception, they're the rule.
 
It's not obvious shermer would sue should this be a lie. I bet known skeptics gets slandered all the time by various nutcases. Legal proceedings are tiresome, choose your battles as they say.

I doubt the veracity here, and would await better sources for these claims.
 
eirik said:
It's not obvious shermer would sue should this be a lie. I bet known skeptics gets slandered all the time by various nutcases. Legal proceedings are tiresome, choose your battles as they say.

I doubt the veracity here, and would await better sources for these claims.
Click to expand...

My understanding is that, if you want to sue someone for libel, slander or defamation of character - the burden of proof, of course, being on the plaintiff - you have to prove that what they said or wrote was untrue, that they knew it to be untrue and said or wrote it anyway, and finally that, as a result of what they said or wrote you suffered a measurable financial loss. You need this third and last proof if you want to get any money out of the suit. You could sue to curtail the slander or libel and even force the defendant to print a retraction, even if you haven't suffered a loss. However, since lawyers and legal proceedings are costly, it would probably be to one's detriment to sue if one cannot get any money out of it.
 
qayak said:
That's somehow important? Shermer called him a racist instead of an anti-semite and the guy has held onto it for all these years even though Shermer has apologized to him on numerous occasions? Film at 11:00. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

You mean an anti-semite isn't a racist? I'd be damned if I'd apologize over that.
 
TimCallahan said:
You mean an anti-semite isn't a racist? I'd be damned if I'd apologize over that.
Click to expand...

He also gets mad about being called a holocaust denier instead of his preferred title of "holocaust revisionist," not realizing that denying the holocaust is a clear example of historical revisionism.

Arguing against the common definitions of words and becoming angry about it is also part of his shtick.
 
Doghouse Reilly said:
As untrustworthy as Cole may be (I personally have never heard of him before this thread), I find it extremely unlikely that the communications posted on his website between himself and Shermer's lawyers are in any way fraudulent. He may be a despicable person, but I would assume he is savvy enough (judging from the descriptions of the way he avoided detection for so long) to not get himself into legal trouble in such a blatant way.

Knowing what I know of Shermer, on the other hand, it is very easy to believe that the communications published on Cole's website are completely valid as represented by Cole.

Again, if Cole were lying about this, it would soon enough be public record, because Shermer would have grounds for a slam-dunk lawsuit against Cole, which I have no doubt he would be eager to file.
Click to expand...

David Cole became famous/infamous for being a Jewish holocaust revisionist who made the following documentary in 1992 - http://codoh.com/library/document/1001/ He made several appearances on tv talk shows such as Montel Williams, Donahue and Morton Downey Jr. After receiving death threats from other Jews - www.ihr.org/books/ztn.html he went into hiding. He resurfaced last year after having a successful Hollywood career under the name of David Stein - www.countercontempt.com Here is footage from the 1994 Donahue show where Cole appeared with Michael Shermer - www.youtube.com/watch?v=EwwXQRHcXC4
 
Checkmite said:
Neither has anything whatsoever to do with Michael Shermer. The information isn't the least bit useful.
Click to expand...

The Guardian one does have some background about Shermer and Cole, but I thought everyone here already knew who Shermer is.

I did not know who Stein/Cole was prior to this thread, so to me anyway, those articles told me all I needed to know.
 
TimCallahan said:
My understanding is that, if you want to sue someone for libel, slander or defamation of character - the burden of proof, of course, being on the plaintiff - you have to prove that what they said or wrote was untrue, that they knew it to be untrue and said or wrote it anyway, and finally that, as a result of what they said or wrote you suffered a measurable financial loss. You need this third and last proof if you want to get any money out of the suit. You could sue to curtail the slander or libel and even force the defendant to print a retraction, even if you haven't suffered a loss. However, since lawyers and legal proceedings are costly, it would probably be to one's detriment to sue if one cannot get any money out of it.
Click to expand...

That depends. From what I understand, in the UK it is the other way round; the burden of proof is on the defendant. In order to sue for libel you pretty much only have to show that a particular statement has been made and then it is up to the defendant to prove either:

a) that the statement is true
b) that this could not affect that person's reputation

OR

c) that the affect of people believing such an untrue statement could not affect the finances of that person.

For example, David Irving tried to sue another historian for libel and was only defeated after a very lengthy trial in which Richard Evans was brought in to show that Irving actually was indeed a fraudulent liar who abused the historical resources for his own Holocaust denying aims.

However, Irving was based in the UK where he had actually had something of an undeserved reputation as a historian.

For a time, foreign libel suits were made in the UK particularly on this basis that they could not sue elsewhere. For example, Roman Polanski sued Vanity Fair when he was in France because:

a) he could not go to the US to sue Vanity Fair or he would have been arrested

and

b) he could not go to the UK for fear of extradition but he only had to show that the statements in Vanity Fair had been made. It was up to Vanity Fair to show that it could not dent his reputation and it seemed they lost.

and

c) because Vanity Fair earned money in the UK, presumably he could win something from them.

So I think there could have possibly been a way in which Shermer could sue David Cole, except the UK may have recently tightened restrictions on who can sue to avoid libel tourism, and it may be difficult to compel David Cole to pay money in the UK.
 
angrysoba said:
That depends. From what I understand, in the UK it is the other way round; the burden of proof is on the defendant. In order to sue for libel you pretty much only have to show that a particular statement has been made and then it is up to the defendant to prove either:

a) that the statement is true
b) that this could not affect that person's reputation

OR

c) that the affect of people believing such an untrue statement could not affect the finances of that person.

For example, David Irving tried to sue another historian for libel and was only defeated after a very lengthy trial in which Richard Evans was brought in to show that Irving actually was indeed a fraudulent liar who abused the historical resources for his own Holocaust denying aims.

However, Irving was based in the UK where he had actually had something of an undeserved reputation as a historian.

For a time, foreign libel suits were made in the UK particularly on this basis that they could not sue elsewhere. For example, Roman Polanski sued Vanity Fair when he was in France because:

a) he could not go to the US to sue Vanity Fair or he would have been arrested

and

b) he could not go to the UK for fear of extradition but he only had to show that the statements in Vanity Fair had been made. It was up to Vanity Fair to show that it could not dent his reputation and it seemed they lost.

and

c) because Vanity Fair earned money in the UK, presumably he could win something from them.

So I think there could have possibly been a way in which Shermer could sue David Cole, except the UK may have recently tightened restrictions on who can sue to avoid libel tourism, and it may be difficult to compel David Cole to pay money in the UK.
Click to expand...

I'm aware of the decidedly odd take on such suits in the UK. It seems to regard someone as guilty if accused until they prove a negative. I find this really bizarre.

As far as I know, Shermer would have to sue Cole in the U.S. So, the UK take on such suits might not be relevant.
 
Thanks for the link

That story is hilarious. There's enough information there to convince me that David Stein is telling the truth about what happened. If he's not, the law firm for Michael Shermer will be able to easily deal with it
 
Anyway, no doubt both systems are open to abuse. And in both cases the tactics can be to outspend the other person, or to write intimidating letters knowing the other person will blink first.

I've finally got round to reading this exchange. I don't give David Cole the time of day, but it is interesting that this exchange comes up, assuming Cole has not simply invented these emails:

Hi Mike,

It’s the guy you never get tired of attacking, David Cole. I’ve been keeping up with this whole rape accusation thing, and, of course, I have no special knowledge beyond what I’ve read. But, and here’s the reason I’m writing to you, I’m just damn, terribly curious. And curiosity is good, right, Mike? So here’s my curiosity. Has this experience, you know, the whole rape accusation thing, made you any more sympathetic, or perhaps given you a bit more empathy, regarding the things you said about me? How you branded me a “racist” (the modern equivalent of calling someone a “witch”). How you admitted you lied. And how you refused to retract your accusation even after admitting you lied.

So I’m interested in asking you if your current dilemma has perhaps birthed in you some small regret for having lied about me.

I have no knowledge of the truth or lack thereof regarding the accusations made against you. If they’re true, there is no punishment that is too harsh for you. But if they’re false, well . . . it kinda stinks having folks print lies about you, huh? Is this a “chickens coming home to roost” moment for Dr. Michael Shermer?
Click to expand...

Hi David,

Thank you for the frank and forthright letter. To cut to the chase and answer your question, yes the libelous and defamatory comments being made about me has (sic) made me more sympathetic and understanding to how I have interacted with creationists, Holocaust revisionists, New Age gurus like Deepak Chopra, and others, and in fact, all of the people I have debated with in all of these fields have been, for the most part, unfailingly polite to me and far more thoughtful and reasonable than any of the people in the FTB/athiest [sic] community and how they have treated me.

I don’t think you are a racist David, and I’m sorry for the things I said about you.

So, yeah David, the chickens have come home to roost, so please accept my apology for some of the things I said about you.
Click to expand...
 
TimCallahan said:
My understanding is that, if you want to sue someone for libel, slander or defamation of character - the burden of proof, of course, being on the plaintiff - you have to prove that what they said or wrote was untrue, that they knew it to be untrue and said or wrote it anyway, and finally that, as a result of what they said or wrote you suffered a measurable financial loss. You need this third and last proof if you want to get any money out of the suit. You could sue to curtail the slander or libel and even force the defendant to print a retraction, even if you haven't suffered a loss. However, since lawyers and legal proceedings are costly, it would probably be to one's detriment to sue if one cannot get any money out of it.
Click to expand...

That's not my point. Even if you have a good case, it's not always the best solution to go to court. In fact, it seldom is.
 
Wrong thread for the rape allegations

There's already a thread about Michael Shermer's rape allegations. This thread is about Michael Shermer's attempted book banning. Just sayin'
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom