The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals upholds the earlier decision in my favor in the defamation lawsuit filed by John Lott against me.
Knowing John Lott, U.S. Supreme Court, here we come.
Justice Prevails
TAGS: John Lott
Naked Self-Promotion
Keep up with the latest Freakonomics news and chatter at Big Buzz. And here's more:
- What to feed your brain and ease your commute? Business Insider says Freakonomics Radio!
- Stephen Dubner talks with Dan Schawbel at Forbes about the Freakonomics phenomenon.
- Freakonomics: The Movie is now on Showtime! It is also available on DVD
and Blu-ray
. You can also watch it on iTunes or Netflix.
- Freakonomics tops Forbes' list of books that rock the "New Author Platform".
- Daily Beast Q&A with Dubner & Levitt on SuperFreakonomics paperback edition.
- NY Mag on Levitt’s new mind-for-hire gig.
- Econ profs rank Levitt as their fourth favorite economist under age 60.
- TIME has named the Freakonomics blog one of "The 25 Best Financial Blogs."
- Freakonomics Radio has hit the air! Find out when our second season of five hour-long specials will air on your local public radio station. You can download/subscribe at iTunes, get the RSS feed, or grab our widget.
1. How did a private email between you and John McCall become available?
2.The Supreme Court will not take this case…
Crap, I had Lott at 7:1 odds. You just cost me $350, Levitt! Curse you and your “facts” and “exposing of fraud”!
@Harlan
If you were challenged to a duel, and all you had was a water pistol, you’d decide on a different way to settle things too…
Moving it to the courts is brilliant, he attacks the sender of the message, without having to revisit his possibly flawed conclusions. What’s at issue isn’t the truth, what’s at issue is his reputation, for a man in Lott’s position, that’s worth lots.
Harlan: it’s legally irrelevant whether you’re repeating a defamatory allegation that you heard from someone else without saying whether you agree with it. Legality aside, stating in a widely-published book that there’s a rumor going around that a named scholar faked his data, without either debunking or substantiating it, is a cheapshot, IMO.
If Steven Levitt does not know, for a fact, that other scholars have analysed Lott’s data using the same techniques and none of them has replicated his findings, then Levitt should publicly admit that, as a matter of common decency.
Opposing council is a construction attorney.
How bizzare. Could Lott not get an expert is this kind of law to represent him?
http://www.seyfarth.com/index.cfm/fuseaction/attorney.attorney_detail/object_id/a4a6178a-d4fc-4ef2-ae08-428dd615b7ca/MarkJohnson.cfm
@ rw – Probably through our FRCP’s expansive means for discovery.
And I agree, theres no way the SCOTUS will grant writ of certiorari
Apparently Lott’s data isn’t alone in being questioned…
http://www.dailytech.com/Report+British+Doctor+Who+Launched+VaccineAutism+Scare+Falsified+Data/article14232.htm
I’m actually surprised at how much common sense reasoning is used in a judge’s opinion. I guess I haven’t read one before. This makes me surprised at some of the frivolous lawsuits that are upheld.