Heartland Institute Threatens To Sue Anyone Who Comments On Leaked Documents

what does waiting have to do with anything? by drinkypoo · 2012-02-19 04:38 · Score: 4, Interesting

If the documents are false they were talking about someone else and it's good for them in the long run because they'll have lots of independents to point to and say "these people are the cause of all this!" But if they are real then they're only going to make it look like they're trying to bury the truth (which would, in fact, be the case) and it can only go against them.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"

Re:what does waiting have to do with anything? by SadButTrue · 2012-02-19 04:42 · Score: 5, Insightful

They seem to be a bit confused about the authenticity of the documents:
"Therefore, the authenticity of those documents has not been confirmed." (in bold none the less)
then at the bottom:
"How did this happen? The stolen documents were obtained by an unknown person who fraudulently assumed the identity of a Heartland board member and persuaded a staff member here to “re-send” board materials to a new email address."
Err so they are your documents but you cannot confirm that they are your documents?

--
grape - the GNU free, open source rape
Re:what does waiting have to do with anything? by MisterMidi · 2012-02-19 04:58 · Score: 5, Insightful

They claim at least one document has been faked (the climate strategy memo) and others may have been altered. If this is indeed the case, the documents aren't authentic.
Re:what does waiting have to do with anything? by BasilBrush · 2012-02-19 05:11 · Score: 5, Insightful

Of course they claim one is faked. It's so damaging to them they don't have any other means of defence other than to claim fake. We can expect them to say it's faked either way.
Whether it actually is faked or not is another matter. There's no evidence one way or the other. But it being in a bundle with genuine documents does put the balance of probabilities on it also being genuine.
Re:what does waiting have to do with anything? by Gideon+Wells · 2012-02-19 05:21 · Score: 5, Insightful

The innocent have nothing to fear, yes, I know that.
If they fear commenting on these documents to such a degree, I have to ask why, All they have to do is never confirm the documents (or wait a few months, on a Friday, at midnight). So there is an easy route of censorship there.
Second, the whole climate change is bunk movement's claim is that politics is being played, and you can't trust the results saying it is happening. We have a memo here implying that politics might be being played, and research/motives to be questioned. Revealing this is grounds for being sued.
Third, lawsuits potentially coming? Even ignoring the chilling effect, do we really need to reach that stage of escalation int his subject where every time someone speaks for one side the other side begins suing?
They are all attacking the messengers and trying to cease the message. They have yet to put out anything to show these are false. Just silencing the people trying to talk about this.

--
by Anonymous Coward: I, for one, welcome the shift from car analogies to pizza analogies. um.. overlords?
Re:what does waiting have to do with anything? by sed+quid+in+infernos · 2012-02-19 05:24 · Score: 5, Insightful

"But it being in a bundle with genuine documents does put the balance of probabilities on it also being genuine." No, it doesn't. We know the person who obtained whatever genuine documents are there is dishonest and has an agenda.* How does the "balance of probabilities" say that this person didn't do something else dishonest to further his agenda? We have no knowledge on this point one way or the other.
*I know some people say the same thing about the institute itself. Which is why I have no idea whether that document is fake or not.
Re:what does waiting have to do with anything? by sed+quid+in+infernos · 2012-02-19 05:26 · Score: 2

"Truth is a complete defence against defamation." And you know the disputed document is authentic how, exactly?
Re:what does waiting have to do with anything? by demonlapin · 2012-02-19 05:30 · Score: 4, Informative

There is actually a pretty significant amount of evidence it's faked. Every document in the bundle except the strategy memo and an IRS document was printed to PDF in the central time zone. The IRS document was printed to PDF in GMT-4. The strategy memo was scanned in with an Epson scanner to a PDF by someone in the Pacific time zone. All documents except the strategy memo and a board directory were printed to PDF on January 16, the day before a board meeting. The board directory was printed January 25. The strategy memo was created at 3:41 PM on February 13. If you want more, read over here.

In short, it really looks like someone got a bunch of real documents and then threw something in to sex it up a bit. The problem for them is that they did it so damned badly. The problem for Heartland is that they're acting like dicks toward a lot of people, when they should be upending heaven and hell to find the memo forger and crucifying him for libel.
Re:what does waiting have to do with anything? by FirstOne · 2012-02-19 05:31 · Score: 5, Insightful

The first thing a defendant's lawyer is going to do is subpoena a true copy of the originals. Then the cat will be out of the BAG for sure.
Re:what does waiting have to do with anything? by Moryath · 2012-02-19 05:44 · Score: 5, Insightful

The innocent have nothing to fear, yes, I know that.
Actually, what the innocent still have to fear is HI acting like every other right wing shill group. They have two things on their side: money and lawyers. They can bankrupt an innocent person through the act of barratry and as a corrupt right wing shill group whose previous exploits involve funding faked studies to do things like claim cigarette smoke isn't dangerous, they've already shown that they have no moral compass stopping them from doing so.
If they fear commenting on these documents to such a degree, I have to ask why,
See above. If they get exposed so blatantly, they might have to fold. And the people writing for them might have to find real work rather than being right wing shills.
Second, the whole climate change is bunk movement's claim is that politics is being played, and you can't trust the results saying it is happening. We have a memo here implying that politics might be being played, and research/motives to be questioned. Revealing this is grounds for being sued.
Third, lawsuits potentially coming? Even ignoring the chilling effect, do we really need to reach that stage of escalation int his subject where every time someone speaks for one side the other side begins suing?
They are all attacking the messengers and trying to cease the message. They have yet to put out anything to show these are false. Just silencing the people trying to talk about this.
Right wing shillery RELIES on two things: the echo chamber and the chilling effect. Ever noticed how a Fox News viewer screams about the "liberal media" nonstop? It's because if they ever listened to both sides, they'd realize their side's argument is more full of holes than a loaf of aged swiss cheese.
Re:what does waiting have to do with anything? by Rob+the+Bold · 2012-02-19 05:50 · Score: 3, Interesting

There is actually a pretty significant amount of evidence it's faked. Every document in the bundle except the strategy memo and an IRS document was printed to PDF in the central time zone. The IRS document was printed to PDF in GMT-4. The strategy memo was scanned in with an Epson scanner to a PDF by someone in the Pacific time zone. All documents except the strategy memo and a board directory were printed to PDF on January 16, the day before a board meeting. The board directory was printed January 25. The strategy memo was created at 3:41 PM on February 13. If you want more, read over here.
How do these dates, time zones and scanner types recorded in the PDFs suggest that some of these docs are fakes and some are original? Are you suggesting that the time zone discrepancy indicates that?

--
I am not a crackpot.
Re:what does waiting have to do with anything? by robot256 · 2012-02-19 05:56 · Score: 4, Funny

Clearly they are false because no organization owns more than one scanner! This is clear evidence that someone other than their organization scanned some of the documents. /sarcasm
Re:what does waiting have to do with anything? by Sulphur · 2012-02-19 05:56 · Score: 2

Are they going to prosecute first posters?
Re:what does waiting have to do with anything? by ColdWetDog · 2012-02-19 05:59 · Score: 3, Insightful

The first thing a defendant's lawyer is going to do is subpoena a true copy of the originals. Then the cat will be out of the BAG for sure.
Oopsy, we lost it. Here's a copy.....

--
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Re:what does waiting have to do with anything? by multimediavt · 2012-02-19 06:02 · Score: 4, Insightful

The first thing a defendant's lawyer is going to do is subpoena a true copy of the originals. Then the cat will be out of the BAG for sure.
Why were you the first one to post on this, so low in the chain?!! That was the FIRST thought in my head, "A subpoena ought to clear that up in about a week!" I wish we could mod up thread as well as points!
Re:what does waiting have to do with anything? by jc42 · 2012-02-19 06:04 · Score: 2

It's tough for geeks with their exclusive-or thinking to wrap their minds around that, ...
Oh, c'mon; any true geek would default "or" to inclusive-or. It's only in common speech that "or" usually means exclusive-or. In mathematics and most technical fields, inclusive-or is the default interpretation of "or". Any true geek would understand this.
Actually, there are a fair number of geek jokes based on the difference between the two ors, generally based on a misunderstanding that uses inclusive-or when exclusive-or was correct. Probably the simplest family of such jokes is about a geek who answers a question of the form "Would you like X or Y?" with a plain "Yes."

--
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
Re:what does waiting have to do with anything? by Surt · 2012-02-19 06:10 · Score: 5, Informative

"Truth is a complete defence against defamation." And you know the disputed document is authentic how, exactly?
It doesn't matter whether the documents are authentic. The issue at stake is whether anyone who read the documents and commented upon them had reason to believe that their own comments were false.
"For example, the Minnesota Supreme Court has held:
We hold that a private individual may recover actual damages for a defamatory publication upon proof that the defendant knew or in the exercise of reasonable care should have known that the defamatory statement was false. The conduct of defamation defendants will be judged on whether the conduct was that of a reasonable person under the circumstances."
Since there's clearly no way to know whether any statement related to these documents is false, the commenters are clearly safe.

--
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
Re:what does waiting have to do with anything? by demonlapin · 2012-02-19 06:19 · Score: 4, Insightful

Because only one document is scanned. And the one document that's scanned is scanned almost a month after everything else. And the one document that's scanned a month after everything else is the only one that uses inflammatory language like preventing people from "teaching science". It looks fake to me. There's plenty of stuff in the documents that are basically acknowledged as real to let people know how they work, and who they support, and where their money comes from... but the hot, sexy stuff just isn't there. Does your organization work like this? Unsigned, undated memos to people who aren't listed are scanned in from printouts to be put in the corporate file even though everything else you generate goes direct to PDF?
Re:what does waiting have to do with anything? by mathmathrevolution · 2012-02-19 06:28 · Score: 5, Informative

The best evidence that the strategy memo is authentic is the amount of material in that memo that has subsequently been confirmed by other sources: From Desmogblog:

The DeSmogBlog has reviewed that Strategy document and compared its content to other material we have in hand. It addresses five elements:
The Increased Climate Project Fundraising material is reproduced in and confirmed by Heartland's own budget.
The "Global Warming Curriculum for K-12 Classrooms" is also a Heartland budget item and has been confirmed independently by the author, Dr. David Wojick.
The Funding for Parallel Organizations; Funding for Selected Individuals Outside Heartland are both reproduced and confirmed in the Heartland budget. And Anthony Watts has confirmed independently the payments in Expanded Climate Communications.
Re:what does waiting have to do with anything? by erroneus · 2012-02-19 06:30 · Score: 2

That's true to a point, but did you know most people still believe "Climategate" was the truth and still is? That's the problem. Once the kind of lies Heartland put out circulated, that was that. When the truth came out about Climategate, no one was interested in publishing the truth... there's no zip, pop or bang in reporting that, after all, and without the zip, pop or bang, you can't sell breakfast cereal advertising.
What Heartland seeks to prevent is... well... exactly the effect they launched against climate scientists.
Re:what does waiting have to do with anything? by BasilBrush · 2012-02-19 06:36 · Score: 5, Interesting

Of all the people in the world who could have provided an analysis that it's a fake, it's the wife of a fellow in the Koch Foundation. The Heartland Institute's biggest donor.
And then all the evidence she gives isn't that it's a fake, but only that the author is different from the other documents. And that the person that wrote it did so later than the other documents and referring back to them. But Heartland is a lobbyist organisation with multiple employees spread out over America, so none of that is evidence of a fake.
It's basically someone with the objective of showing it's a fake throwing everything at it. All of it sounds plausible, but none of it actually logically stands up as evidence of a fake.
Re:what does waiting have to do with anything? by MobyDobie · 2012-02-19 06:37 · Score: 5, Insightful

Sorry, that is really shitty, argument. The Protocols of the Elders of Zion probably included some accurate quotes from The Talmud. (mixed in with the faked stuff) The presence of any such quotes, wouldn't prove them genuine,
Re:what does waiting have to do with anything? by owski · 2012-02-19 06:43 · Score: 2

The one document in question duplicates what's in the others that are almost certainly genuine. That in no way shows that the document is genuine, only that a forger could have copied and pasted. That's a pretty weak argument from DeSmogBlog.
Re:what does waiting have to do with anything? by Garridan · 2012-02-19 06:46 · Score: 3, Insightful

If these documents are fake, but bring to light damning facts, their falsity is irrelevant. The damning facts are all that matter at the end of the day. If you have a good argument, and bolster it with lies... you can throw the lies away and still have a good argument. It might make for some confusion and futile debate in the meantime, but ultimately, bad means can get one to good ends. I don't condone this, but it can be effective.
Re:what does waiting have to do with anything? by SlippyToad · 2012-02-19 06:58 · Score: 5, Insightful

No, the real evidence that this is all genuine stuff is how freaked-out and panicked this philistine think-tank is over the public revelation of their dishonest agenda.
Fuck them.

--
One day I feel I'm ahead of the wheel / the next it's rolling over me / I can get back on / I can get back on
Re:what does waiting have to do with anything? by sed+quid+in+infernos · 2012-02-19 07:00 · Score: 2

Since there's clearly no way to know whether any statement related to these documents is false, the commenters are clearly safe.
That assessment is overbroad. If someone publishes false facts about Heartland, and these falsehoods are found to be defamatory in nature, then courts are going to conduct the analysis you described. However, it is not at all clear whether someone who repeats false facts (assuming they're false - we don't know) from a document Heartland has repudiated as there own would benefit from the "knew or should have known" defense, especially when the source of the information that is being repeated is unknown to the defendant.
Of course, a lot of comments won't fall under defamation anyway. "I read the documents and they make me think Heartland is untrustworthy" isn't libel, even if the documents were all forgeries.
It's also worth noting that the defense you described is entirely unrelated to the defense described in the post I originally responded to. "Truth is an absolute defense" != "To be found liable, the person who makes an allegedly defamatory statement must have known or should have known the statements were false."
In short, I'm not saying commenters would definitely be found liable. I'm saying we know way to little to say truth will be a defense that will cause Heartland's lawyers to be spanked, and that the analysis of whether the commenters should have know the facts were false (if they were) is much more involved than your post would suggest.
Re:what does waiting have to do with anything? by M.+Baranczak · 2012-02-19 07:18 · Score: 5, Insightful

You've got it exactly backwards. Remember the Dan Rather memo? When that came out, everybody was talking about the forgery, and nobody was talking about the rich frat boy who used his family connections to weasel out of military service.
I hope the same thing doesn't happen here. The Heartlanders are doing real and lasting damage, the last thing we need is to give them more ammo.
Re:what does waiting have to do with anything? by nadaou · 2012-02-19 07:21 · Score: 5, Insightful

> We know the person who obtained whatever genuine documents
> are there is dishonest and has an agenda.* ..
> *I know some people say the same thing about the institute itself.
"some people say"?? it's their entire reason for existence and they've never tried particularly hard to hide it!
some people also say the pope is catholic.. there is a time for
choosing your words carefully, and there are other times to call
a spade a spade.

--
~.~
I'm a peripheral visionary.
Re:what does waiting have to do with anything? by demonlapin · 2012-02-19 07:31 · Score: 3, Interesting

It's circumstantial evidence. You obviously find it less compelling than I do. It's not proof of a fake, but it's certainly evidence of one.

Incidentally, as for Koch being "[t]he Heartland Institute's biggest donor", go check out their response over here, where they claim (and Greenpeace's records confirm) that they gave $25k to Heartland in 2011 for health care research, not global warming, and that this was the first donation they had made since 1999. They do have one very large anonymous donor, and if you have some evidence identifying who that is I'd for one find it interesting.

If you really care about fixing global warming rather than Team Red/Team Blue, you're going to need to engage people on both sides of the political spectrum. Turning everything into a massive conspiracy theory is not going to help you do this.
Re:what does waiting have to do with anything? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-19 07:32 · Score: 5, Insightful

We know the person who obtained whatever genuine documents are there is dishonest and has an agenda.
This statement, on it's own, impinges on the authenticity of every whistleblower, ever.
Of course, for the aggrieved party, every person who betrays confidences is dishonest and has an agenda. It remains then, for the 3rd party observer, to determine if that evaluation holds up against the scrutiny of the agenda of the aggrieved.
Frankly, "If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, we have at least to consider the possibility that we have a small aquatic bird of the family anatidae on our hands."
Re:what does waiting have to do with anything? by MobyDobie · 2012-02-19 07:32 · Score: 3, Insightful

There mere fact that a document annoys somebody, doesn't prove it genuine either. To continue the example - Jews are pretty annoyed about the Protocols of the Elders of Zion too. But that still doesn't make the protocols into a genuine document either.
Re:what does waiting have to do with anything? by Surt · 2012-02-19 07:43 · Score: 2

The defense I suggested in response to yours is how the courts have decided to interpret the 'truth is an absolute defense'. They have extended the notion of truth to anything that is not an intentional falsehood.

--
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
Re:what does waiting have to do with anything? by DJRumpy · 2012-02-19 07:46 · Score: 4, Informative

And herein lies the problem with your argument: "According to Heartland"
You are assuming that Heartland has no stake in this game and of course would also tell the truth. At this point, you can't assume any of these are invalid, or valid given that the only folks talking are those with the documents, and those that lost them.
Re:what does waiting have to do with anything? by WrongSizeGlass · 2012-02-19 07:55 · Score: 5, Insightful

So you're saying that if Heartland was willing to lie about science then they'd be willing to lie about lying about science? Very interesting ... </Artie Johnson>
Re:what does waiting have to do with anything? by mbkennel · 2012-02-19 07:59 · Score: 5, Insightful

"Turning everything into a massive conspiracy theory is not going to help you do this."
One side promotes the idea that there has been a massive global conspiracy by scientists, across a number of disciplines and organizations, lasting over decades, to lie about a central scientific result in their field. There is no sensible organizational backing or motivation to this.
Scientists try to "engage people" by doing as good science as they can and working hard over decades to produce consensus estimates of the best known status from high-quality experimental and theoretical research, and work to explain it in (highly educated) laymens' terms as well as they can.
The other side yells that they're lying scumbags out to attack freedom.
The other side promotes the idea that there is a small political conspiracy to gain by people who have previously been known to engage in political conspiracies of a a similar nature. There is a well known organizational consistency and economic motivation to this.
Re:what does waiting have to do with anything? by mathmathrevolution · 2012-02-19 08:10 · Score: 3, Insightful

How would the prospective forger have known about Anthony Watt's involvement in the Expanded Climate Communications? This is accurate information and the only possible source for it was the leaked strategy memo. Only somebody working with the Heartland institute could have had the necessary information to "fake" that memo. It could not have been an invention of unscrupulous activists as Heartland claims.
Re:what does waiting have to do with anything? by LordLimecat · 2012-02-19 08:12 · Score: 2

Except that if its not genuine but everyone is assuming that it is, they might have the very same reaction.
This thread has become a hotbed of the worst kind of question-begging. Can everyone try and put on their reasoning hats here before jumping in with more flames?
Re:what does waiting have to do with anything? by DJRumpy · 2012-02-19 08:14 · Score: 2

No, I'm saying that neither has been proven true, or false. Assuming that Heartland would tell the truth about how the documents were acquired without proof of that is foolish. If an unbiased third party investigated and had proof that one of them spoke the truth, I'd be more likely to pay attention.
That said, I agree this looks pretty damning to Heartland. This has Streisand written all over it.
Re:what does waiting have to do with anything? by PopeRatzo · 2012-02-19 08:14 · Score: 5, Interesting

And Left wing shillery relies on two things: vilification of your enemies and the chilling effect.
You know, when you say, "They both do it, and they're both the same", you deny what's going on in this story and in all politics across the nation.
You're responding to the news of a killing spree by saying, "Well, the other side has used spitballs to annoy people", so they're murderers, too.
"They" and "Them" was not an invention of the Left in America. Demonization of the "Other" was purely the Right's innovation. If you go over the history of the US since WWII, you'll find that the Left's approach has been, "Let's get as many people on board as possible" and the Right's approach has been, "We're being victimized by THEM".
Even in the area of racism, which was a huge problem for the Democratic Party in the post-war era, you'll find a steady effort by the Democrats to make the party as uncomfortable for racists as possible, so that by the time a black man was the head of the party, the racists had left. And just guess where they all went. When all those racists left the Democratic Party, which party do you think they went to? You think they all became Libertarians? You think they all started voting for the Green ticket?
Even so, if you look at tip of the spear of the Left in America currently, the Occupy Movement, there is still an effort to invite and include the tea party and disaffected poor white working class people (which has been surprisingly effective, by the way). How inviting were the Tea Party to people who were pro-choice or pro-union or pro gay marriage. Even though the Tea Party was ostensibly focused singularly on government spending, there was a whole list of exclusionary issues with which one had to agree with them before they'd even consider you an American, much less "one of them".
From Edmund Burke on, the Right has been purely reactionary. It's what's given them their amazing draw with racists, sexists, bigots. It's what makes every single right-wing talk show revel in racism, sexism and bigotry. Check out at random any right-wing talk show and listen to the callers. Listen to the hosts. There is an effort to outdo one another. If one says "Obama is a liberal" the next will say, Obama is a tyrant, the next will say he's Hitler, and the next will say he's the Antichrist (though, to be fair, "Antichrist" is usually where they run out of steam, because it's hard to top that one, which is why it's usually saved for the most horrible crimes of this President, such as showing respect to a foreign head of state).
You want to say "Oh both sides are equally horrible" you're going to have your judgment called into question, friend.

We're losing OUR country.
And who the fuck is "We", white man? You got a mouse in your pocket? And who are YOU and your "WE" losing your country to, exactly? The liberals? You start out decrying how someone's comments are horrible because they talk about "THEY and THEM" and then you say, "We're losing OUR country". Do you even realize that the statement, "We're losing OUR country" is the very definition of pointing a finger and blaming, "THEY and THEM"? "We're losing OUR country" has zero meaning unless there is a THEM that you are demonizing. So who the fuck are you losing YOUR country to, exactly?
Now I'm going to give you a pass, because it's Sunday and maybe you've had a rough week. But you're going to have to spend a little time thinking this over. You can come back when you've learned something.

--
You are welcome on my lawn.
Re:what does waiting have to do with anything? by thisnamestoolong · 2012-02-19 08:18 · Score: 3, Funny

"Koch shill"? I would have gone with "Kochsucker", myself...

--
To the haters: You can't win. If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine
Re:what does waiting have to do with anything? by ravenshrike · 2012-02-19 08:19 · Score: 4, Informative

Well, let's see. Except for the one document, ever single one is a professionally designed print to pdf document with creation dates in early and mid January and which has a timecode of CST the region where Heartland has it's main offices. The "memo" is a poorly scanned document that reads like a 8th grader's "how to talk like a supervillain" letter with plenty of copypasta and an outright falsehood. Namely that the Koch brother's donation was concerned with climate change. Given that the donation code was HCN and that Bayer AG and multiple other pharma and medical companies also have the same donation code this is unlikely to say the least. Then there's the fact that the memo was scanned in Februray with a timecode of PST. All in all, a shittastic smear job.
Re:what does waiting have to do with anything? by ravenshrike · 2012-02-19 08:27 · Score: 2

They're going to subpeona from Heartland a memo that Heartland is stating is a forgery. A memo which has no identifier as to the creator or recipient. How does that work again?
Re:what does waiting have to do with anything? by AK+Marc · 2012-02-19 08:39 · Score: 5, Insightful

Also note that they haven't said the document is not authentic. They just said that until they are sure what their liability is for either statement, they refuse to comment. They've never said they are false. They just threatened anyone who talks about them before they verify them, then refused to verify them.

--
Learn to love Alaska
Re:what does waiting have to do with anything? by riverat1 · 2012-02-19 09:12 · Score: 4, Insightful

If I had mod points to give you'd get a +1 Insightful. The idea that so many scientists across so many disciplines from around the world could maintain such a conspiracy for so long is absurd. Do people really believe the so many scientists are willing to risk their scientific reputations for political aims? Anyone who proves them wrong would destroy them and would be up for a Nobel Prize.
Re:what does waiting have to do with anything? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-19 09:32 · Score: 2, Informative

Quoting from TFA, second link in the Slashdot summary:
"One document, titled “Confidential Memo: 2012 Heartland Climate Strategy,” is a total fake apparently intended to defame and discredit The Heartland Institute. It was not written by anyone associated with The Heartland Institute. It does not express Heartland’s goals, plans, or tactics. It contains several obvious and gross misstatements of fact."
They say quite clearly that one of the documents is fake. The first sentence is even in bold!
Quoting further:
"Some of these documents were stolen from Heartland, at least one is a fake, and some may have been altered."
Read the press release and then read the Slashdot summary again. The Slashdot's summary completely omits Heartland's disavowal the main document and the distinction between the fake document and the potentially altered originals. With "diligent" reporting like Slashdot's, is it any wonder that they're a little be pissed off?
Note: The disavowed document is the one containing the "teaching science" quote.
Re:what does waiting have to do with anything? by Moryath · 2012-02-19 10:46 · Score: 4, Interesting

"They" and "Them" was not an invention of the Left in America. Demonization of the "Other" was purely the Right's innovation. If you go over the history of the US since WWII, you'll find that the Left's approach has been, "Let's get as many people on board as possible" and the Right's approach has been, "We're being victimized by THEM".
At the risk of Godwinning the thread... the right wing got round to starting this not very long after a war involving Germany, Italy, and Japan was resolved... and their initial targets "just happened" to be blacks, jews, and "communists." Anyone else have a sneaking hunch whose plan they were thinking had worked so well in Europe for taking power?
Even so, if you look at tip of the spear of the Left in America currently, the Occupy Movement, there is still an effort to invite and include the tea party and disaffected poor white working class people (which has been surprisingly effective, by the way). How inviting were the Tea Party to people who were pro-choice or pro-union or pro gay marriage.
Dunno about those groups, but I've gone to a couple events (4th of July celebrations last year) that were swarming with Tea Party folks... they were busy getting drunk as shit and started shouting racist crap and spitting at a friend of mine who's latino, despite the fact that my friend's family presence in the USA predates the entrance of Texas into the country.
If one says "Obama is a liberal" the next will say, Obama is a tyrant, the next will say he's Hitler, and the next will say he's the Antichrist (though, to be fair, "Antichrist" is usually where they run out of steam, because it's hard to top that one
Actually, that's about the time that the dumbasses start insinuating Obama's either a muslim, or start calling him a "marxist socialist."
And who the fuck is "We", white man? You got a mouse in your pocket? And who are YOU and your "WE" losing your country to, exactly? The liberals? You start out decrying how someone's comments are horrible because they talk about "THEY and THEM" and then you say, "We're losing OUR country". Do you even realize that the statement, "We're losing OUR country" is the very definition of pointing a finger and blaming, "THEY and THEM"? "We're losing OUR country" has zero meaning unless there is a THEM that you are demonizing. So who the fuck are you losing YOUR country to, exactly?
Apparently, Mr. Racist Redneck Retard is losing "his" country to actual Americans...
Re:what does waiting have to do with anything? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-19 12:38 · Score: 2, Informative

There were more peer-reviewed papers suggesting warming than there were cooling at that time. Any scaremongering was done by the media.
Re:what does waiting have to do with anything? by Man+On+Pink+Corner · 2012-02-19 13:21 · Score: 3, Funny

Yes, but when have the Protocols of the Elders of Zion ever actually predicted anything?
Just don't ask the same question about climate models.
Re:what does waiting have to do with anything? by wall0159 · 2012-02-19 14:36 · Score: 4, Insightful

I find it fascinating that this hacking has prompted a discussion about truth, objectivity and facts.
Perhaps we (the public) should apply these new-found reasoning skills to the science of climate change, and ignore some of the ad hominems (and other absurdities) that have been directed against climate scientists by organisations such as Heartland.
Re:what does waiting have to do with anything? by PopeRatzo · 2012-02-19 14:39 · Score: 2

and what will left-wingers do if they actually take power? give you a hint, they're called re-education camps

it doesn't help anyone to vilify your opponents as racists, playing the racism card is so old and tired.
"Re-education"? Who is the side that is trying to change school curricula in America to teach the "controversy" of global warming? Which side wants to re-write American textbooks? Which side has developed a "conservative media", a "conservative alternative to wikipedia", and even a "conservative Bible"? In the US, "re-education" is the sole province of the Right.
Think about the two arguments above that this person, who clearly has a very negative opinion of the American Left, has made. Think about them together and how they relate to each other. Think it over. Think about what he is really saying. Projection is the hallmark of right-wing political opinion in America. When they blame you of something, it is a near certainty that they are most guilty of that very thing. Read some of the right-wing blogs. Listen to right-wing radio, and think about this for yourself. Think about "projection" and see if this is not so.

--
You are welcome on my lawn.
Re:what does waiting have to do with anything? by Catbeller · 2012-02-20 04:24 · Score: 2

No, I don't remember that because it wasn't true. Within a day of the allegation, it was known that IBM Selectrics had proportional font balls at the time of the memo. AND the military had them. AND the same font was used in other Bush docs that weren't in contention. AND the font is from the Sixties, so yes it is possible that it was used. The "fact" is that it was not a forgery. Fonts didn't begin with Macs. And that it is unutterably sad that reality doesn't have a chance in American anymore, not against a Republican cause.
Re:what does waiting have to do with anything? by JWW · 2012-02-23 03:03 · Score: 2

WE is, quite literally, the 99%.
Its one of the things OWS has right. I may disagree with their methods a bit, but 1% of the country is controlling a lot of what happens here.
The Tea Partiers have that same vibe.
Last year a paper was written by an academic that was sympathetic to the Tea Party where he broke down the class situation in the country to the Ruling Class and the Country Class. In his paper he pointed out that the Ruling Class contains both of the major political parties. This concept exactly matches the OWS 1% - 99% argument.
IMHO green issues and environmentalism are being used to keep the liberals in line and keep the Democrat party viable as a part of the ruling class.
On the conservative side, morality and social issues like gay marriage are the handwaving that is keeping the Republican party viable.
The Tea Partiers missed the boat so to speak. They should have been violently opposed to integrating any morality aspects into their midst. It allowed the triangulation of the old guard Republican apparatus to regain control. Just look at the candidates they're putting forth, only one could really be embraced by the Tea Partiers and he's the one constantly labeled as being "unable to win."
With OWS this process is only just beginning, but you can clearly see the moves being made to make OWS a fullyÂfunctioning arm of the Democrats. The green issues, environmentalism, and social justice are being used to pull OWS in as a Democrat organization. Woosh, there goes their ability to claim to represent 99%.
If OWS and the Tea Party could actually merge their core values and effectively fend off attacks by the established parties to marginalize them with, frankly, unimportant side issues. They could be a viable third party that would mop the floor with the other two parties. But as we have seen the establishment fights that HARD.
The key problems in the US right now are Debt, Entitlement Spending, and Defense Spending. The major parties are uniformly committed to basically doing absolutely nothing to really solve those issues. But they're more than willing to fight gay marriage, bailout failing industries, hand out largess to their political allies, continue policing the world, etc.
WE (the voters) need to make some hard and difficult choices to get rid of THEM (the ruling elites).
I have no confidence at all that either grass roots movement (OWS or Tea Party) will be able to really make that happen.

reputation? you never HAD one, sorry by TheGratefulNet · 2012-02-19 04:39 · Score: 4, Insightful

we plan to pursue charges and collect payment for damages, including damages to our reputation.

lol

you guys are fundies. your rep is what it is, memos or no memos.

enjoy your 'moment of babs', you losers.

--

--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."

What, no comments? by salvorHardin · 2012-02-19 04:39 · Score: 5, Funny

Strangely, there don't seem to be many comments on the subject of "Heartland Institute Threatens To Sue Anyone Who Comments...".

Interestingly by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-19 04:39 · Score: 5, Funny

Their view of law is very similar to their view of science.

Streissand by Sqr(twg) · 2012-02-19 04:40 · Score: 5, Funny

Hiring Barbara Streissand as a legal consultant was not their smartest move.

Re:Streissand by __aarzwb9394 · 2012-02-19 04:50 · Score: 4, Insightful

Maybe the Streisand Effect will get more eyeballs on their sites?
They claim that their message is being suppressed by the forces of evil anyway. Their target audience might just see the leaks as the work of the conspiracy of freedom haters and lap up the message.
Re:Streissand by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-19 04:54 · Score: 2, Insightful

They want the Streisand effect. Their job is to create the impression of widespread doubt, the opposite of consent. What better way to do that than a heated debate? Observe how they will redirect the publicity away from their motives to the "topic at hand: climate change".
Re:Streissand by BasilBrush · 2012-02-19 05:15 · Score: 5, Informative

Their target audience might just see the leaks as the work of the conspiracy of freedom haters and lap up the message.
Of course they will. The very same people that were so pleased that the CRU email server was hacked into in the so called "Climategate" affair. That said how great it was that this information was now in the public domain.
Cretins.
Re:Streissand by turkeyfish · 2012-02-19 07:39 · Score: 2, Informative

The Heartland Institute is a non-profit organization not a private entity. According to them their mission is "to discover, develop, and promote free-market solutions to social and economic problems.", which no doubt is true if those free-market solutions are owned lock, stock and barrel by Koch Industries, their primary financial backers.
They are a political lobbying organization, which given the corporate mindset of US laws means that they can be used to launder lobbying expenses on behalf of Koch Industries.
As far as mindsets go, you have clearly demonstrated yours, but like Heartland you have to do it as an Anonymous Coward.

authenticity confirmed by Lehk228 · 2012-02-19 04:40 · Score: 4, Insightful

'the individuals who have commented so far on these documents did not wait for Heartland to confirm or deny the authenticity of the documents.

well I guess that confirms the authenticity now

--
Snowden and Manning are heroes.

Re:authenticity confirmed by PapayaSF · 2012-02-19 04:50 · Score: 3, Informative

Many of the documents seem to be genuine, but the "smoking gun" document that everyone is quoting looks like a fake. This possibility seems to have been raised first here on Slashdot by eldavojohn, and Megan McArdle of The Atlantic has written extensively about it.
The Heartland people are making themselves look bad with these silly threats, though, which will lose them the sympathy they should get as victims of a forgery-based smear job.

--
Q: What does the "B." in Benoit B. Mandelbrot stand for? A: Benoit B. Mandelbrot
Re:authenticity confirmed by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-19 05:00 · Score: 5, Informative

Megan McArdle? Really?
Just what does an economics writer who knows nothing about either economics or simple math have to do with document authentication?
Re:authenticity confirmed by Jiro · 2012-02-19 05:15 · Score: 4, Insightful

If the documents made the left look bad instead of the right everyone would be falling over themselves to claim that Internet people with no professional training who figured out the documents were fake were doing the people a valuable service and a prime example of how the Internet empowered the common man.
There certainly have been cases in the past where fake documents were exposed by people on the Internet with no professional training. Remember Dan Rather's Killian documents? (Another case where the documents made the right look bad, but turned out to be fabricated). It wasn't the mass media that exposed those--it was guys on the Internet.
Re:authenticity confirmed by turkeyfish · 2012-02-19 07:47 · Score: 2

With weeds like Andrew Brietbart and Matt Druge growing everywhere, its doubtful that any case could be made for monoculture in journalism. Then again, it sounds more desperate if you claim that the only right wing hacks are being persecuted and have no axes of their own. Nice ploy, even if its not true.

Under what pretense ? by zero.kalvin · 2012-02-19 04:40 · Score: 4, Interesting

Even if they were written by his holiness Satan himself, I don't get how that would stop me from 'commenting' on them!

Re:Under what pretense ? by MightyMartian · 2012-02-19 04:48 · Score: 5, Insightful

I guess they're hoping that their opponents are as gullible as their supporters.

--
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.

Hypocrisy at its finest by JoshuaZ · 2012-02-19 04:45 · Score: 5, Insightful

The most fascinating thing about this is the general hypocrisy involved. Whenever the whole "ClimateGate" matter occurred, Heartland was at the front of trumpeting the documents from that (which incidentally turned out to be utterly benign), with zero concern about the ethics of taking confidential documents from other people using hacking. Yet now, when the same thing happens to them, they use every bit of the legal system to go after not just the people who actually did do it but anyone who is then commenting or reproducing the documents. Really charming behavior.

Re:Hypocrisy at its finest by MightyMartian · 2012-02-19 04:55 · Score: 5, Insightful

I can't sort out what part of the legal system they plan on using. If you can find the leak, then certainly you can persue them criminally and civilly. Perhaps if it's being reproduced word for word on websites, then you can probably go for copyright infringement, though by now the document has spread to the four corners of the planet and it's far past the point when that's really a meaningful option. As to suing people that comment on the document, that's patently absurd. In most Western countries there are protections on that sort of speech. I guess you could try to claim libellous conduct, but by now tens of thousands of people have likely commented on it, and the idea that you can actually bring any fraction of them into court is highly unlikely, and that's not even talking about the odds of conviction (pretty low in the US, that's for sure).
I've seen some pretty pathetic legal threats, but this more resembles the kind of nonsense I used to see on some Internet forums where some nasty little prick, when cornered, would make some vague legal threat. Might as well threaten that Jesus will come down and stomp on your balls.

--
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Re:Hypocrisy at its finest by Gaygirlie · 2012-02-19 05:14 · Score: 2

I guess you could try to claim libellous conduct
That would only work if they could prove the documents were indeed forgeries and that the commenters knew about them being forgeries. Neither of which applies in this case, so no libellous conduct - defense for them. In short, there is nothing they can do about this, they're just pushing out lots of hot air right now.
Re:Hypocrisy at its finest by Guppy06 · 2012-02-19 05:15 · Score: 2

In most Western countries there are protections on that sort of speech.
All you need to do is find one jurisdiction where there aren't. For the English language, the jurisdiction of choice is England and Wales. It's called "libel tourism."
Re:Hypocrisy at its finest by mbone · 2012-02-19 05:19 · Score: 2

That would only work if they could prove the documents were indeed forgeries....
For some reason, Wilde vs Queensberry comes to mind here.
Re:Hypocrisy at its finest by Foobar+of+Borg · 2012-02-19 05:20 · Score: 2

The most fascinating thing about this is the general hypocrisy involved. Whenever the whole "ClimateGate" matter occurred, Heartland was at the front of trumpeting the documents from that (which incidentally turned out to be utterly benign), with zero concern about the ethics of taking confidential documents from other people using hacking. Yet now, when the same thing happens to them, they use every bit of the legal system to go after not just the people who actually did do it but anyone who is then commenting or reproducing the documents. Really charming behavior.
You want to see even greater hypocrisy? Go to the Heartland Institute site and look up their articles on Tort Reform. Hypocrisy indeed!

--
Similar to the upcoming US election results
Re:Hypocrisy at its finest by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-19 05:29 · Score: 2, Informative

The Climategate emails have never been proven to have been stolen. Many people believe they were in fact leaked.
The Climategate emails were true. At least one of these documents was almost certainly faked.
Climategate involved emails that were created by people working for the public, with public funds, and making recommendations to the public. These documents were a private organization, working with private funds.
In short, it's different. As someone else said in this thread, the Heartland Institute is making itself look bad. And probably has no real legal case. On the other hand, bloggers who spread the faked document all over the internet when it was pretty obvious from the start that it was villian-monologuing over-the-top and noticeably different from the rest of the documents pretty much deserve what they get legally.

Scientology by David+Gerard · 2012-02-19 04:49 · Score: 3, Insightful

Because it worked so well for Scientology.Yeah, I can't see this going wrong in any way at all.

--
http://rocknerd.co.uk

Pants on fire. by sgt+scrub · 2012-02-19 04:50 · Score: 3, Funny

The best way to win in the court room is to prove a witness has a history of lying. This begs the question, "Who from Heartland could be a credible witness"?

--
Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.

Re:Pants on fire. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-19 04:57 · Score: 5, Informative

Although I agree with your sentiments wholeheartedly I don't think 'begs the question' means what you think it means
Re:Pants on fire. by LandDolphin · 2012-02-19 06:18 · Score: 2

I don't think " 'begs the question' " means what you think it means anymore.

--
Spelling and Grammar errors have been added to this post for your enjoyment
Re:Pants on fire. by wbean · 2012-02-19 07:18 · Score: 2

Sadly, it does now mean what the parent poster thinks it means. I gave up on this one when the Economist started using it with the new meaning. Also note the last paragraph of the Wikipedia article.

Gee, this was never a problem for "Climategate" by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-19 04:50 · Score: 5, Insightful

The Heartland Institute didn't find it necessary for following this protocol for commenting on leaked documents when it came to Climategate.

Re:Gee, this was never a problem for "Climategate" by jo_ham · 2012-02-19 05:37 · Score: 5, Insightful

That was my first thought exactly. One rule and set of ethics for them, another set for everyone else and any time the spotlight is on them it's "persecution".
Shares a lot in common with the way religious fundamentalists operate, too. "You're oppressing my religious freedom by not allowing me to force my beliefs on others! That's unfair!"

the most logical /. response is to organize... by acidfast7 · 2012-02-19 04:51 · Score: 2

everyone to comment on it! Where is the FB group? or where is published link so that I can refer to the referenced blog in a status update. it's about time that /. realized that it has a moral duty to combat stuff like this. without organization, ACTA would still be a huge deal.

shakespeare's answer: by circletimessquare · 2012-02-19 04:52 · Score: 2

"methinks the lady doth protest too much"

if the documents were fake, they wouldn't elicit such a strong reaction. therefore, the documents are real

--
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it

Re:shakespeare's answer: by Jiro · 2012-02-19 05:21 · Score: 2

if the documents were fake, they wouldn't elicit such a strong reaction. therefore, the documents are real
By your reasoning, it should be okay to run around saying that black people are low IQ and are stealing all the white women. I mean, you know there would be a strong reaction to that, right? So it must be true.
Re:shakespeare's answer: by Foobar+of+Borg · 2012-02-19 05:23 · Score: 4, Informative

"methinks the lady doth protest too much"
if the documents were fake, they wouldn't elicit such a strong reaction. therefore, the documents are real
Not to be nit-picky, but when the queen said this in Hamlet, she meant "promise" too much, as the word was sometimes used then.

--
Similar to the upcoming US election results
Re:shakespeare's answer: by Rob+the+Bold · 2012-02-19 06:00 · Score: 2

if the documents were fake, they wouldn't elicit such a strong reaction. therefore, the documents are real
By your reasoning, it should be okay to run around saying that black people are low IQ and are stealing all the white women. I mean, you know there would be a strong reaction to that, right? So it must be true.
I believe the "strong reaction" to which the GP was referring was the strong reaction of denial by the alleged authors of the leaked documents, not the "strong reaction" by those now reading them.

--
I am not a crackpot.

AWWW... by Kupfernigk · 2012-02-19 04:53 · Score: 2

Perhaps some of their funding is under threat as the pendulum slowly moves away from anti-science craziness to wondering why the Greenland glaciers are melting and whether buying beachfront property is now only a short term investment. Perhaps, I don't know, some very rich people are looking at San****m* and Romney and thinking that, just perhaps, the time has come to start repositioning themselves as progressives, because rich people like to be on the winning side. And perhaps suing John Doe for punitive damages for commenting on a leaked document looks like a way of restoring some of that funding.

*letters omitted to protect sensitive but uninformed Slashdot readers from the effects of a Google search.

--
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."

Re:Right Wingers by Daniel_Staal · 2012-02-19 04:55 · Score: 3, Interesting

Well, to be fair, the Democrats are only slightly better... And are in bed with the RIAA and the MPIAA. (Among other things.)

It's really a matter of 'who will do the least damage to the country', not 'who will make the country better'.

(Personally, I refuse to vote for either party, but I know that it's a vain hope that my vote will make any difference.)

--
'Sensible' is a curse word.

Here iz me commenting on ur leaked docz. by forkfail · 2012-02-19 04:55 · Score: 4, Funny

And to make sure that there's some substance:

My read on the documents is that they provide conclusive proof that the Heartland Institute promoted systematic criminal fraud, corrupted science and effectively engaged in treasonous activity.

There. Now sue me.

--
Check your premises.

Re:Here iz me commenting on ur leaked docz. by ixnaay · 2012-02-19 05:21 · Score: 2

I would have modded this up, but I am terrified that could possibly be construed as a 'comment' by our Heartland masters.

Incidentally, from their website by Kupfernigk · 2012-02-19 04:58 · Score: 4, Funny

Those persons who posted these documents and wrote about them before we had a chance to comment on their authenticity should be ashamed of their deeds, and their bad behavior should be taken into account when judging their credibility now and in the future.

Presumably they have the same attitude to the leaked University of East Anglia emails, and have campaigned to have the people responsible for the leak, and the many, many denialists who misrepresented their contents, taken to court.

--
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."

Re:Incidentally, from their website by oiron · 2012-02-19 16:36 · Score: 2

From the moment of the leak, to the moment of confirmation, one could argue that the authenticity was in doubt.
UEA, not being a lobbying "institute", did the decent thing and stated in public that the mails were authentic, the moment that they were able to verify that. As far as I remember, they didn't really threaten to sue anyone for merely commenting on the documents...

Re:Right Wingers by History's+Coming+To · 2012-02-19 05:02 · Score: 5, Interesting

You'll probably like the Lamb Of God frontman who's standing for election.

My first act as President of the United States will to be shot. That’s right, SHOT. With a high-powered assault rifle. Immediately after taking the oath of office, I will be escorted about twenty yards away and be shot publicly in a non-lethal area of my body by a highly trained Navy SEAL sniper. It will hurt like fuck. Why would I do this? Because I will now be commander-in-chief of the armed forces. This means that during my term I will probably have to make some tough decisions affecting the survival of other men. And as commander-in-chief, I shouldn’t expect anyone in our military to do anything I’m not willing to do myself. That includes getting shot. Me being shot will be broadcast live world-wide via satellite, with no bleeping out of the incredible string of curse words I will undoubtably let fly with. I will be required to walk/limp/crawl on my own power a minimum of 50 yards through the mud to an ambulance that will take me away to patch me up. If I can’t make it on my own, I’m not tough enough to be your President.

--
Please consider this account deleted, I just can't be bothered with the spam anymore.

Re:Right Wingers by forkfail · 2012-02-19 05:06 · Score: 3, Insightful

Just remember - power abhors a vacuum. Maybe you're right to want to kick both out (as I'm sometimes inclined), but if the power structure of government is torn down, others will move quickly to fill that void. And the power poised at this time is corporate power, which when allowed to be unchecked is not controlled by the invisible hand, but rather, becomes an heriditary feudalistic system.

Yeah, they're corrupt as all getup. But when the question is tear it all down or try to fix what we've got, and tearing it all down opens things up to even worse scenarios, one is only left with trying to find a way to fix what is.

At least, until it gets so bad that everyone takes to the streets and we wind up shooting each other until the rage is burned out and the next generation of politicians of some stripe take the reigns.

--
Check your premises.

Heartland Institute Corruption? by andydread · 2012-02-19 05:06 · Score: 4, Funny

I would seem that the Heartland institute is a truly corrupt entity. The Heartland institute cannot expect to stifle discussion of their seemingly corrupt behaviour. The Heartland institute must not have heard of the Streisand Effect. Maybe the Heartland institute should get a a clue and stop trying to squelch discussion. Its funny that the Heartland institute is trying to squelch speech yet the Heartland institute claims to be for free speech. The Heartland institutewere at the front of the line waving internal documents of climate scientists. Yet The Heartland institute is now threatening to sue anyone who discusses their internal Documents. Such pathetic doublestandards highlight the hypocrisy of the Heartland institute A poster child for corruption.

Re:Fake. by drinkypoo · 2012-02-19 05:10 · Score: 2

I read it and I don't find it compelling. Also she is dumb or a shill, read down to the story collection she posted before the "analysis"

Pharma shoots self, the rest of us, in the foot:
But what you didn't hear from Sen. Kagan today is what happened behind the scenes. It turns out that big pharma helped to kill an earlier version of the TREAT Act, which would have created an entirely new "progressive and exceptional approval" pathway for innovative new drugs: something that could have turbocharged drug development in several fields.

Big Pharma does NOT repeat NOT want it to be easier to bring new drugs to market, that would make competition feasible, and it would eliminate their competitive advantage over naturopathic medicine, which is being forced off store shelves firstly by being prevented from making even those claims supported by science, and secondly by assertions that citations from scientific research or historical data is the same as making claims. This does not represent a self-foot-shooting, only the usual crapping-on-us. Again, she's dumb or a shill and I'm not interested in her opinion. We've seen out-of-style memos in larger releases of information before, so unless there's some compelling evidence either way I will just continue to ignore it like I am the whole flap.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"

Sue me by 2Y9D57 · 2012-02-19 05:11 · Score: 2

So sue me. If the district court judges here can stop laughing long enough, they'll sanction your lawyer and award me costs.

My comments on these documents: by thisnamestoolong · 2012-02-19 05:12 · Score: 4, Insightful

FUCK YOU HEARTLAND INSTITUTE. FUCK YOU. FUCK YOU. FUCK. YOU.

Whew... Now that that is off my chest...

This is completely unacceptable. We really ought to have laws in place to smack down people that try to use the legal system to suppress protected speech -- this type of prosecution, regardless of the ultimate outcome, causes great harm to the people that are caught up in it. It can cost tens of thousands of dollars to defend yourself, which is financially ruinous to the average person. This creates a chilling effect on free speech, which we really cannot allow if we want to remain free. I honestly believe that the people from the Heartland Institute belong behind bars for even attempting such a thing. So, in short, fuck off Heartland Institute. Keep your shit-digging hands off of my civil liberties. Even if you weren't a braindead anti-science piece of shit of an organization, I would think that it is time for you to go. The fact that everything your institute stands for is a huge, fat, retarded lie does not help your case.

--
To the haters: You can't win. If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine

From Internets to Heartland by TemperedAlchemist · 2012-02-19 05:23 · Score: 2, Informative

Come at me bro.

As it turns out, we do know what burden of proof is. We know that you have it. And I am prepared and willing to watch yourself just try to violate the axiom of non-contradiction. Either they're your documents or they're not.

See there is this thing called the first amendment...

Re:Right Wingers by TheLink · 2012-02-19 05:24 · Score: 3, Insightful

Shot in a known nonlethal way. Bah. Many sociopaths would do that if it means they get what they want.

Here's how to really be commander-in-chief, risk your life on the line and lead the soldiers out to battle in spirit:
http://slashdot.org/journal/208853/how-to-reduce-unwanted-wars

That would make even sociopaths think harder before telling others to put life and limb on the line. When you send soldiers to war you're not sending them to be shot in nonlethal parts of their bodies.

--

Too many replies beneath your current threshold

Always idiots... by russotto · 2012-02-19 05:25 · Score: 4, Insightful

OK, suppose everything Heartland says about the documents is true: someone leaked a bunch of real documents, and slipped a bogus "smoking gun" memo in there.

Any PR firm worth its salt could have a field day with that, portraying the Heartland Institute as the victim. Why would they then ruin it by making ridiculous statements implying it's an individual's legal obligation to fact check a document before commenting on it? Do they just have an institutional need to twirl their evil mustache?

Re:Always idiots... by rrohbeck · 2012-02-19 07:02 · Score: 4, Insightful

This.
They're acting exactly as if caught red-handed. They've been a professional PR organization in controversial fields and a hostile environment for decades and they can't spin this? Hmm.

--
thegodmovie.com - watch it

Document already shown as fake. by will_die · 2012-02-19 05:27 · Score: 2, Informative

There have been plenty of places that have shown the document is a false.
Here is one from a liberal source so some of you will not automatically ignore the truth http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/02/leaked-docs-from-heartland-institute-cause-a-stir-but-is-one-a-fake/253165/

Re:Document already shown as fake. by stevebyan · 2012-02-19 05:43 · Score: 3, Insightful

Megan McArdle is not a liberal source. http://www.balloon-juice.com/2011/08/04/under-pressure/
Re:Document already shown as fake. by turkeyfish · 2012-02-19 08:26 · Score: 2

The fact that the document in question was faxed and does not bear the same PDF metadata as do other files means nothing with respect to whether or not the contents of the document are fake. Any Heartland employee could easily have prepared the document at an other location and printed it out before hand to fax it from a different location is hardly proof it is fake. If it were fake, why would a Heartland secretary have access to the document and bundled it with the others?
The McArdle articles are a very shoddy effort on the part of Heartland to try to make people believe the controversial document was a fake. This same "journalist" has a history of laundering up excuses and providing cover in other pro-corporate efforts to provide alternative PR.
Re:Document already shown as fake. by Jah-Wren+Ryel · 2012-02-19 09:18 · Score: 2

Colbert so nailed that one with, "Reality has a well-known liberal bias."

--
When information is power, privacy is freedom.

Re:reputation? you never HAD one, sorry by Moryath · 2012-02-19 05:29 · Score: 5, Insightful

we plan to pursue charges and collect payment for damages, including damages to our reputation.

Translation: we're going to sue everyone we possibly can, because the papers were correct, our position is publicly indefensible, and the only resource we have is lawyers and money to threaten people with like mafia leg-breakers.

This from the same money-laundering front group (I call them this as they REFUSE to disclose their donor list) who commissioned bogus "studies" to try to claim cigarette smoke isn't dangerous.

Re:Right Wingers by TheLink · 2012-02-19 05:37 · Score: 2

At least, until it gets so bad that everyone takes to the streets and we wind up shooting each other until the rage is burned out and a Dictator of some stripe takes the reins.

Fixed that for you.

When you have a violent revolution, the odds are the person or group willing AND capable of exerting the most violence will rise to the top. Once they rise to the top, they are unlikely to give up their power or hold democratic elections. At which point who in the country can kick them out? They already have proven to be capable of the most violence.

And that's why Communist revolutions end up as dictatorships - the Communist Manifesto has violence as part of the implementation plan. When the process of selecting your leaders is not by votes but by violence what do you expect? Once in a while you may get a benevolent dictator, but generally you have to wait for the Dictator's children or grandchildren's generation for things to start changing for the better.

--

Too many replies beneath your current threshold

Nice font by sjames · 2012-02-19 05:43 · Score: 2

I thought they chose a nice font for the documents.......DOH!!

Re:reputation? you never HAD one, sorry by ColdWetDog · 2012-02-19 06:03 · Score: 5, Funny

When you have the law in your favor, bang on the law,
When you have the facts in your favor, bang on the facts,
When you have neither the law nor the facts in your favor, bang on the table.

--
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!

Re:reputation? you never HAD one, sorry by Moryath · 2012-02-19 06:05 · Score: 4, Insightful

Right wing followup:
When you have neither the law, nor the facts, nor the table in your favor, get a lawyer to hold a gun to someone's back and tell your opponent to shut up or you'll bankrupt them in legal fees defending yourself anyways.

This is the problem of the current state of US law. It doesn't MATTER if you have the law in your favor, or the facts in your favor, provided the other side has enough money to make you waste all of yours defending yourself in court against spurious motions and threats.

Re:Fake. by the+eric+conspiracy · 2012-02-19 06:06 · Score: 2

Thanks for providing a nutter tag word i.e. "naturopathic".

Re:Right Wingers by Daniel_Staal · 2012-02-19 06:25 · Score: 2

Not going to happen. If a political party can't get at least 35% of the vote in any particular election, it's not relevant in American politics. (And I might argue that number is higher.) Winner takes all, single representation means that there is no space for small parties to gain a foothold and grow: You either need to be a serious contender right off the bat, or you aren't going to be worth talking about.

--
'Sensible' is a curse word.

Re:Right Wingers by artor3 · 2012-02-19 06:34 · Score: 4, Insightful

This guy watches too many movies. Unless they're just shooting off a pinky finger, any area you get shot by a "high-powered assault rifle" is a lethal area, barring immediate medical attention. Even a shot to the calf would have him bleed out long before he managed to crawl fifty yards.

It's pretty telling that he has given no thought whatsoever to the conscience of the shooter. He's going to order this young man to shoot, and likely kill, someone on live television, just to show how tough he is. He's willing to deal with the physical pain of being shot (likely because he doesn't understand the consequences), but the idea that forcing a person to murder another human being could cause emotional scarring is completely alien to him.

Thankfully, there is absolutely zero chance of this guy being elected to any office.

How many more blogs? by Walter+White · 2012-02-19 06:49 · Score: 2

I think I need to start another blog. Where do I find these documents so I can comment on them?

The big picture by metrometro · 2012-02-19 06:49 · Score: 4, Insightful

Think about this: how committed to individual liberty is a group that threatens civil and criminal penalties for discussing their donor list?

The Heartland Institute calls themselves a "libertarian think tank" which is rarely disputed. However, they are actually a pro-corporate think tank. This involves a lot of libertarian language and theory, but all of it is aimed at crippling government regulations over their donors. This works very well. It does not, however, advance the libertarian agenda or discussion in useful ways. They are shaping the discussion of liberty along frames they find useful, but have the effect of isolating and stupifying the libertarian movement. The result is bipartisan consensus on the Patriot Act. SOPA. TARP.

Pro-corporate think tanks and their government allies will never be able to have a conversation about state capture, the role of corporate institutions in individual liberty, or free individuals as a curb on corporate excess because a corporate-run tyranny is their preferred outcome. Libertarian-leaning people need to point this out, loudly and often, or they will continue to us for ends we do not support.

Re:The big picture by digsbo · 2012-02-19 08:06 · Score: 2

Thank you! The "Heartland Institute" is not in any way libertarian or free-market; it is clearly crony capitalist, big-government. Frankly, you see even the CATO institute and the Libertarian Party ignoring Ron Paul because he's "too" libertarian (even though his policies are much more mainstream than most of his supporters' philosophies). And the CATO crowd is, effectively, a GOP-lite variant of mainstream republican attitudes. Big government plus legal pot, I think. Whereas Heartland Institute is big government, playing to a particular set of large corporations.
People actually think that the bank bailouts were a product of the free market. The level of wanton ignorance required to believe this is simply astounding.
Re:The big picture by Black+Parrot · 2012-02-19 09:24 · Score: 3, Insightful

Think about this: how committed to individual liberty is a group that threatens civil and criminal penalties for discussing their donor list?
The Heartland Institute calls themselves a "libertarian think tank" which is rarely disputed. However, they are actually a pro-corporate think tank. This involves a lot of libertarian language and theory, but all of it is aimed at crippling government regulations over their donors. This works very well. It does not, however, advance the libertarian agenda or discussion in useful ways.
This is what "libertarian" has become in the USA. Republicans without the pretence of being on God's advisory panel.

--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade

I WANT TO BE SUED by glorybe · 2012-02-19 06:57 · Score: 5, Funny

I hasten to offend in every way I can the Heartland Institute. I hope they spend a vast fortune trying to sue me. I'm willing to do most anything to expose these creeps and could care less whether I win or lose a law suit with them. Fact is I am immune from bad consequences to a civil court. I intend to remain immune as well. In my state a person on Social Security, disabled who only owns one home and one vehicle can not be touched by a civil suit. So if these think tank types wish me to let up on them they better give me a small fortune so i would feel some sorrow if they win in court. I think these creeps rape babies. They might be the ones who murdered that Ramsey child. They might even have murdered Nicole Simpson. Worse yet I suspect they are Republicans.

Thankfully, it can be proven! by celtic_hackr · 2012-02-19 07:04 · Score: 2

Thank goodness the Feds got the printer and scanner makers to put those tiny yellow dots on printouts! Now we can use that information to find the serial number of the Epson scanner and find the hacker... oops... Heartland employee...oops...?... who created that document.

Or vice versa. In any case, whoever did the scannin' is the one who will get blamed for doin' the deed of releasin'...err stealin'... err ...?

Well anyway we know, something. But we're not quite sure what and we can't really talk about it \'cause Heartland seyz it's illegal maybe, and we'll all go to jail for 50 years, or somethin'. And doooon't yoooou forget it! Babaloooie!

Of course if it makes it to the Internet, it MUST be TRUE!

Re:Thankfully, it can be proven! by turkeyfish · 2012-02-19 07:24 · Score: 5, Interesting

Unfortunately, the thief was apparently smart enough to photocopy the documents and then pass them through a filter. Poof, no yellow dots.
The problem for Heartland is these guys got caught with their pants down and revealed they have quite a few less inches than they were claiming.

No real evidence that they are forged. by Geoffrey.landis · 2012-02-19 07:05 · Score: 5, Insightful

There is actually a pretty significant amount of evidence it's faked. ...

No, what you listed is merely evidence that the pdfs were not all produced at the same time.

This is interesting, but has no relevance to whether it's faked or not. There is no reason that real documents might not have been pdf'd at different times.

...The problem for Heartland is that they're acting like dicks toward a lot of people, when they should be upending heaven and hell to find the [putative] memo forger and crucifying him for libel.

Which brings up an interesting question. When somebody broke into the CRU and published (what turned out to be a highly edited selection of) stolen e-mail, the response of "let's upend heaven and hell to find the thieves" did not seem to be high on anybody's priority list. So, apparently, it's only an important crime if you steal documents from people denying the science?

--
http://www.geoffreylandis.com

Re:Right Wingers by colinrichardday · 2012-02-19 07:11 · Score: 2

I might care more about the interests of the states if they didn't pass laws requiring women to undergo vaginal ultrasound in order to get an abortion, or usurp federal power with anti-immigration bills, or attempt to treat performing an abortion as a felony.

But I thought they were nice heartland people by KingTank · 2012-02-19 07:48 · Score: 2

Good folksy, homey people from the heartland with good hearts who love their families and are good, wholesome and folksy and wear cowboy hats and say "god bless" all the time.

Re:Fake? by turkeyfish · 2012-02-19 08:12 · Score: 2

The entire thesis of the Megan McArdle's two pieces rests on the assumption that the metadata associated with the pdf is several time zones away from the Heartland institute and hence, is a forgery. The problem with this line of reasoning is obvious, since any Heartland employee producing the memo could have been elsewhere when they created the PDF and then emailed it. The fact that the time posted on the metadata are not the same is hardly proof of anything in regard to the authenticity of the document's contents, although I can understand why someone might be willing to argue so if enough money exchanged hands.

Re:Gee whiz Dr. Doolittle by Pluvius · 2012-02-19 08:13 · Score: 2

1) There was no need to wait because the authenticity of those documents was never challenged.

You do realize that this begs the question, right? Since the denialists immediately trumpeted the Climategate emails as authentic, how could there have been a chance for any question of authenticity to arise? This is exactly what the Heartland Institute is criticizing now, that "the individuals who have commented so far on these documents did not wait for Heartland to confirm or deny the authenticity of the documents." The fact that the Climategate emails did indeed turn out to be authentic is irrelevant to this hypocritical argument.

Rob

Re:Characteristics of a Conspiracy Theory by riverat1 · 2012-02-19 08:51 · Score: 2, Insightful

And your post is pretty much the definition of a conspiracy theory.

Or perhaps they were leaked at different times by tgibbs · 2012-02-19 09:10 · Score: 4, Interesting

Another plausible scenario is that that one document was leaked first, in the form of a paper copy (or scan of one), and it was the information of that document that inspired those who received it to seek further corroborative evidence via "social engineering."

Re:Or perhaps they were leaked at different times by demonlapin · 2012-02-19 09:44 · Score: 5, Insightful

The "strategy memo" is, from what I have read, dated on the afternoon before this was all released. I suppose your scenario might apply if it was dated even a few days earlier, but 3:41 pm Pacific is 5:41 pm Central - i.e., Heartland's offices would almost certainly have been closed. And that strategy memo, which is the one whose authenticity is most suspect, is also the one that makes the broadest, most vilifying claims (about preventing teachers from teaching science, or the megabucks from the Evil Kochs to trash talk global warming, or the journalists who are supposedly in their pockets). In at least one case - the Koch funding - it's clearly contradicted by the other documents, so if you want to be a responsible journalist you'd have to question your source's reliability when the document with the juiciest information isn't supported by anything else.
Re:Or perhaps they were leaked at different times by silentcoder · 2012-02-20 00:47 · Score: 2

Not to mention, if you're going to sneak into the office, grab a document that's internal-only, scan it, put it back, and email it out...
Well wouldn't you WANT to do that on a day when the office is as empty as possible ?

--
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *

Re:Right Wingers by Jah-Wren+Ryel · 2012-02-19 09:27 · Score: 2

(Personally, I refuse to vote for either party, but I know that it's a vain hope that my vote will make any difference.)

If enough people voted their conscience instead of for a team all of our votes would start to make a difference again.

We don't actually have to win an election in order to affect politics - all it takes is enough voters to scare the big-team parties into thinking they need to adopt some of the platforms of the parties of conscience. It is the marginal risk that can make the difference - e.g. if the democrats had wised up and adopted more of the Green party platform many of those people who voted for Ralph Nader would have voted for Gore instead. The democrats ignored the risk of losing a couple of percent of the voters and it lost them the election. The republican ass-kissing of the tea-party is an example of them having learned the Ralph Nader lesson.

--
When information is power, privacy is freedom.

Re:Yes. by demonlapin · 2012-02-19 11:01 · Score: 2

The conspiracy keeps getting deeper...

esp. in such documents which are 'inflammatory', people (the one/ones writing it) tend to write in their own style

So you have a lot of experience with writing inflammatory documents that are eyes-only?

Why is the future of humanity important? by turkeyfish · 2012-02-19 12:06 · Score: 2

The authenticity of the documents seems not to have deterred British Newspapers, who are all over this see for example:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2012/feb/15/leaked-heartland-institute-documents-climate-scepticism

Which has republished the original document in question:

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/heartland_k-12_curriculum.jpg

A rather chilling read, when you consider the amount of money their sponsors are pouring into this effort.

The depth of the Climate Denier Conspiracy will continue to be big news as more and more of its internal operations are exposed and as the climate continues to grow warmer.

Re:reputation? you never HAD one, sorry by baegucb · 2012-02-19 15:38 · Score: 3, Insightful

Sort of how this billionaire supporter of Romney does it when papers or websites investigate him: http://www.salon.com/2012/02/19/billionaire_romney_donor_uses_threats_to_silence_critics/singleton/

Where was the angst? by oDDmON+oUT · 2012-02-20 05:46 · Score: 2

Heartland concludes their attributable post with "But honest disagreement should never be used to justify the criminal acts and fraud that occurred in the past 24 hours. As a matter of common decency and journalistic ethics, we ask everyone in the climate change debate to sit back and think about what just happened."

My question to them?

Where was that same call for reasoned response in 2009? (http://www.factcheck.org/2009/12/climategate/)

--
Some days it's just not worth
chewing through my restraints.

Slashdot Mirror

Heartland Institute Threatens To Sue Anyone Who Comments On Leaked Documents

135 of 517 comments (clear)