Some people have asked me why I am speaking out publicly about Brian Leiter’s threat of litigation. If the only thing I cared about was getting Brian Leiter to leave me and my wife alone, silence would probably be the prudent response to the letter we received. But I think the philosophical community is entitled to know when freedom of speech within it is under threat. That's why it's important to me that Leiter's threatening actions are brought to light.
The things we have said about Brian Leiter constitute protected speech. They were not misleading, and we stand by them. If Leiter carries out his threat to sue, we will vigorously defend. We will also have the right to counterclaim against Leiter for false and defamatory statements he has made about us during the last year, including those contained in the letter from his lawyer he published and his commentary on it.
For what it's worth I think you are doing a brave and also necessary thing. I think for too long the philosophy profession's tolerance of his nastiness has been a black mark against the discipline itself.
ReplyDeleteI don't know, freedom of speech is only under threat if Leiter is wrong that your speech was defamatory. But if he is right, there is no threat to freedom of speech since defamatory speech is not protected. I think it would be more convincing if you could prove your speech was true.
ReplyDelete...which is a reversal of the burden of proof.
ReplyDeleteI'm not a lawyers Anonymous, so I'm not here to talk about proof and who has the burden of it.
ReplyDeleteLeiter says we've defamed him. Of course if he's right, then we've defamed him, and so, on that assumption, it's not protected speech. But he isn't right, we haven't defamed him, and it is protected speech. These are things I'm saying, because they're true.
I'm not trying to prove anything in a blog post, of course.
That isn't a reversal of the burden of proof. Leiter has to show the words are defamatory. The burden is on him to do that. If he does, then various defences may be raised. One may be the defence of truth. But the defendant has to prove that. Remember you only get to that stage IF it is defamatory.
ReplyDeleteI think that you are doing a great service to the academic community. Please keep fighting the good fight.
ReplyDelete