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.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
The judge for Lott's lawsuit against Levitt has thrown out Lott's claim that he was defamed by Freakonomics. (Decision is here.)
Some quotes from the decision:
The Court will grant a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) only if "no relief could be granted under any set of facts that could be…
When we last visited Lott's lawsuit against Levitt, Lott was asking the judge to reconsider the dismissal of his case against Freakonomics.
Well, the judge denied this, so now Lott wants to amend his complaint. The new complaint adds is now about another sentence in Freakonomics as well:
Then…
William Ford reports on the oral arguments in Lott's appeal of the dismissal of his lawsuit against Levitt:
Evans and Sykes asked all the questions. Ripple remained silent. I have only glanced at the briefs, but based on the questions and comments during the oral argument, Lott's chances do not…
The Chicago Tribune reports:
A scholar known for his work on guns and crime filed a defamation lawsuit Monday against University of Chicago economist Steven Levitt, co-author of the best-seller "Freakonomics."
John Lott Jr. of Virginia, a former U. of C. visiting professor, alleges that Levitt…
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?"
Replicate.
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.