Godwin's law and the moon hoax

[raven]

My favourite must be from an ardent hoax devotee who claimed the astronauts would not have traversed the van Allen belts alive, while simultaneously arguing on another thread that Apollo 8 astronauts had to cover up seeing UFOs when they were orbiting the moon.

Ow, my brain. Got any links?

[Luke Pemberton]

My favourite must be from an ardent hoax devotee who claimed the astronauts would not have traversed the van Allen belts alive, while simultaneously arguing on another thread that Apollo 8 astronauts had to cover up seeing UFOs when they were orbiting the moon.

Ow, my brain. Got any links?

I can't remember where it was, it is one of those where you 'have to take my word for it.' I know the forum runs on the principle of documented evidence and not hear say, so apologies for anecdotal evidence. The two opposing claims did have me double take, and then face palm.

[smartcooky]

  Nor can the children of a deceased author sue for defamation if a critic libels him post mortem.

I believe that when there is an estate that exists as a legal entity, in the case of a major author such as Heinlein or Steinbeck, the estate itself has standing to bring legal action.  Or am I remembering incorrectly?

An interesting article on Tolkien's estate, albeit the Daily Mail.

Tolkien estate sues

This must be a very old article

"They also want a court order allowing the Tolkien estate to withdraw New Line's rights to film the trilogy's prequel, The Hobbit.

Peter Jackson, who directed The Fellowship of the Rings, The Two Towers and The Return of the King, has already agreed to act as executive producer on the new project.

It was expected to be released in two films between 2010 and 2011."

Erm, they're a bit late, methinks!

[raven]

I know there was some brouhaha back in the day for TSR for using Ents, Balrogs and Hobbits initially, which were changed to Treants, Balor and Halflings in later editions and iterations of D&D .

[JayUtah]

These often find their way into the public domain as pirate copies and are sold at profit. That is certainly a criminal case of copyright infringement.

Yes.  My involvement with the Utah Film Society and the Sundance Film Festival grants me early-screening privileges for most feature films.  For example, last week I was invited to a private screening of Kevin Costner's new film Draft Day (surprisingly watchable for someone who doesn't like either sports movies or Costner).  Cell phones and any cameras are collected at the door, and there is a sheriff's deputy present.

Technically, merely recording the screening is not criminal in the U.S. since the "commercial gain" element of the crime is unsatisfied.  But the way the cases work out, recording a screening of an unreleased film is prima facie evidence of intent to gainfully distribute, which puts you on the hook for "attempt to..." offenses.  In most U.S. states, for any criminal offense X, you can be charged with "attempt to commit X," which is one degree lesser an offense than the original.  So the technicality rarely holds, and legislatures and courts in the U.S. come down particularly hard on copyright violation.

[JayUtah]

I believe that when there is an estate that exists as a legal entity, in the case of a major author such as Heinlein or Steinbeck, the estate itself has standing to bring legal action.  Or am I remembering incorrectly?

For torts against property, yes.  For torts against a person, no.  Copyright is a transferable right and can be vested in the estate of the deceased according to the laws that govern that particular property, and the laws that govern estates.  Administering the intangible property of the estate is just as straightforward as its chattels and real property.  Use of Tolkien's intellectual property is governed by intellectual property law and administered by his estate executors.  Tolkien's personal reputation became moot the moment he died, so his estate cannot effectively sue if someone, for example, were to call Tolkien an irrepressible womanizer.

Early on, He Who Shall Not Be Named threated to sue me for defaming Bill Kaysing, and later (I was informed) for defaming Ralph Rene.  A third party does not have standing to sue for personal defamation, and under U.S. law it is not possible to defame a dead person.  (Both men named above were deceased at the time.)

[Luke Pemberton]

Tolkien's personal reputation became moot the moment he died, so his estate cannot effectively sue if someone, for example, were to call Tolkien an irrepressible womanizer.

While in Oxford friends and I used to frequent the public house 'The Eagle and Child' where the inklings used to meet. It is not a place I would associate with an irrepressible womanizer.

Early on, He Who Shall Not Be Named threated to sue me for defaming Bill Kaysing, and later (I was informed) for defaming Ralph Rene.

Really? Wow!

A third party does not have standing to sue for personal defamation, and under U.S. law it is not possible to defame a dead person.  (Both men named above were deceased at the time.)

How can anyone fail to understand that you cannot sue for defamation on behalf of someone else, especially if they are dead. Even without standing and law, what chance would an Australian have of suing a US citizen for defamation of another US citizen? The whole scenario is crazy.

[Glom]

Besides of course the oft repeated contradiction of them trying to run screaming to the very establishment they accuse of such dastardly behaviour.

[JayUtah]

It is not a place I would associate with an irrepressible womanizer.

Indeed, which would make such an accusation especially onerous and possibly malicious.

How can anyone fail to understand that you cannot sue for defamation on behalf of someone else, especially if they are dead.

Legally it makes sense.  But emotionally we would like it to be possible, say in the case of a loved one.  How many of us would stand idly by and let strangers impugn our memory of, say, a dear departed parent, with falsehoods and insinuations.  We would naturally want to compel him to stop.

Now consider the mindset of someone inappropriately enamoured with his hero hoax authors.  The same emotion might apply.

[Luke Pemberton]

Now consider the mindset of someone inappropriately enamoured with his hero hoax authors.  The same emotion might apply.

That's an interesting point and has been raised outside this forum. If one goes after the arguments of Rene or Kaysing then He Who Shall Not Be Name and others raise hackles. I have spoken to friends who practice human psychology and psychiatry, and while they insist they would need to meet said persons to make a formal diagnosis, they have offered pointers that possibly explain why they are inappropriately enamored to hoax authors they have never met.  I do not wish to start speculation about individuals, so it is better left as a general comment. In short, it is not healthy or natural, and I guess producing over 500 videos on the subject speaks volumes.

[Noldi400]

Now consider the mindset of someone inappropriately enamoured with his hero hoax authors.  The same emotion might apply.

That's an interesting point and has been raised outside this forum. If one goes after the arguments of Rene or Kaysing then He Who Shall Not Be Name and others raise hackles. I have spoken to friends who practice human psychology and psychiatry, and while they insist they would need to meet said persons to make a formal diagnosis, they have offered pointers that possibly explain why they are inappropriately enamored to hoax authors they have never met.  I do not wish to start speculation about individuals, so it is better left as a general comment. In short, it is not healthy or natural, and I guess producing over 500 videos on the subject speaks volumes.

Speaking entirely hypothetically, of course, it might be somewhat different if the person taking offense had, if not met, at least had some telephone conversations with the individual being allegedly 'maligned', thereby possibly establishing in their mind a personal relationship.  Such as one might see with (just to use a totally random example pulled out of thin air) a grandson. Hypothetically.   

[smartcooky]

Now consider the mindset of someone inappropriately enamoured with his hero hoax authors.  The same emotion might apply.

That's an interesting point and has been raised outside this forum. If one goes after the arguments of Rene or Kaysing then He Who Shall Not Be Name and others raise hackles. I have spoken to friends who practice human psychology and psychiatry, and while they insist they would need to meet said persons to make a formal diagnosis, they have offered pointers that possibly explain why they are inappropriately enamored to hoax authors they have never met.  I do not wish to start speculation about individuals, so it is better left as a general comment. In short, it is not healthy or natural, and I guess producing over 500 videos on the subject speaks volumes.

I am reminded of a quote from the original series of Star Trek...

Spock: I need your advice.

McCoy: Then I need a drink.

Spock: There are many aspects of human irrationality I do not yet comprehend. Obsession, for one - the persistent, single-minded fixation on one idea.

[Daggerstab]

The behaviour reminds me of people fans reacting to criticism of the subject of their fandom, be it book authors, comic artists, pop stars or sport teams. It's not unique or restricted to CTs. I don't know about "healthy", but given its prevalence, it looks quite natural to me.