After Lott’s lawsuit against Freakonomics was thrown out of court, he tried for a doever by amending his complaint. The judge said no, so Lott appealed. And now he’s lost the appeal as well.
More discussion at Volokh.
All I know is that John Lott is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being I’ve ever known in my life.
Any student worth his or her salt would try to take every class John Lott was willing to teach. His research is impeccable, his conclusions are robust, and frankly, only judicial activism is at work here.
Fight the lies!
I’m sorry, but making Mary Rosh comments on a post about Lott is as stupid as those “first” posts that people make. It’s a waste of everybody’s time.
Now, for something on-topic. Some of the reasoning of the Lott supporters in the comments at Volokh is absolutely tortured. Given the common usage, and the context of this specific usage, there is no way that one can make a case for the narrow definition of the word.
… and what word would that be?
Ben: “… and what word would that be?”
As in, “We can replicate the phenomenon of certain individuals making comments which show that they have not bothered to read the articles under discussion.”
Ah, that would be “replicate.” Most of the folks at Volokh seem to agree that the decision was correct. So what’s the problem?
There is no problem as such. However, it’s noteworthy to what length some Lott defenders will go to defend him – up to and including accusing US judges of having a political agenda.
I don’t have a high opinion of some of the posters at Volokh, but compared to the comments cesspool they’re saints.
New comments have been temporarily disabled. Please check back soon.