Can Bart Sibrel be sued for libel or slander by the astronauts he has accused of faking moon landings? Or do none of the astronauts feel it is worthy of their time to try?

Ranb

Sibrel would be just too happy if this would happen. Lots of public airtime for which he doesn't have to pay. And Sibrel may get away with free speech.

__________________
"Flying in space is risky business, but just staying on this planet is risky business too." - John Young, astronaut

I would imagine that there would have to be some "sort" of proof that the Astronauts reputation had actually been damaged...

I know that some will say, "Well, of course it has"...but consider this...anyone that the former Apollo Astronauts have "business/personal dealings" with, will more than likely not for a moment believe any of Sibrel's "stuff".

Not least the thousands of people who put so much work and time into making sure they got there and back again in one piece...

Hey, everyone. Got an incidental link to this site, read a thread or two, and decided to join (despite having nothing but a casual interest in astronomy).

__________________
Move along. There's nothing to see here.

Welcome to BABB Alan

__________________
If this writing is blue you're going too fast!

Here is another thread in which the issue of libel and Bart Sibrel was discussed...

http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=76542


Welcome, Alan A.

Astronauts are probably considered public figures (celebrities), which means that for a libel case defending them to succeed you have to prove not just false claims but actual maliciousness.

__________________
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.

I agree with ToSeek on this on; however, I feel that many of the average NASA workers could sue. He's calling them liars and he's slandering them by stating that they really don't know how to do their jobs.

For example, BS says that all the people in Australia that supported NASA were fooled by the hoax. He is really saying that these people, don't know their jobs.

I agree that it would probably be a waste of time. Even when the trial is over, all the evidence is presented, and Sibrel found to be a liar... do you think very many HBers will actually change their minds?

In their opinion, it's just a kangaroo court by The Man to promote the hoax and harm the one person who sees through their lies. #-o

A trial would change nothing, and just further cement the notions of the hoax believers in the public eye. It's a sad case where winning is losing.

If an astronaut or NASA worker takes Sibrel to court, then it confirms that Sibrel is "onto something," else why would his opponents bother? Suing and not suing can both be seen to validate HB claims.

The problem here is that no one has been identified by name. If Sibrel came out and said "Mark Ferkfleigelnudner" of NASA lied about such-and-such, then Mark F. could probably sue. But as is, there is no aggrieved party (except, as noted, for those who would be deemed celebrities)

It would be a nightmare for the astronauts/Nasa to do such a thing.

All it would do is add more fuel to the fire.

Sibrel, and other woo wooers, would claim that the Government is trying to stifle the truth about the moon landings.

Not to mention that if Nasa or the astronauts did bring him to court, they would have to prove that they did go to the moon. Way too much time and money wasted on someone not worth even mentioning.

Actually on they wouldn't. In libel cases the onious isn't on the claimant to prove that the defendant lied, it's on the defendant to prove that he didn't. NASA wouldn't have to prove that they went to the moon, they'd have to show that BS knew the truth and deliberately lied to cause harm. BS would have to prove that what he claimed was true, or at least that he honestly believes it to be true.

__________________
Howling from the Shadows

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. --- JayUtah

You can't reason an irrational person out of an irrational belief. --- Noclevername

Apollo: The History and the Hoax
Enter the World of Athran

...or at least that he honestly believes it to be true.

He would also have to show that he exercised due diligence to determine whether it was true before publishing it. You can't use the belief defense without showing due diligence.

Actually, if Sibrel's "smoking gun" tape is really what he says it is, it would be quite possible to prove in court that he knew his theory was false, or at least that it didn't account for all the facts. There are things on the raw footage that quite flatly contradict Sibrel's "cutout" or "transparency" theories -- on the parts he didn't show, but we know are there.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

You know, Bart has stated over and over that he would stake his life on the moon misions being faked. I'm just saying....

__________________
You're a coward and a liar and a thOOF - Bart Sibrel

Hyperbole. Stating that one is convinced his story is true is not the same as being able to prove one has done what is necessary to ascertain that his story is true.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

The problem is, BS makes his living at fooling people, and is pretty good at it with the general public-- and unless you hold the trial in Titusville, FL, a typical jury is not particularly informed on space technology. Even if there is only a 1% chance that the case would go against NASA, it isn't worth the risk.

Besides, when was the last time a US government agency defended itself against libel? I mean, the IRS could eliminate taxes if they could sue everyone who has defamed it... :wink:

__________________
Do try not to take me too seriously.

The problem is, BS makes his living at fooling people, and is pretty good at it with the general public...

Yes. But a court of law is not a free-for-all. There are rules about what can be said and what is not allowed to be said. Sibrel is successful at fooling people largely because he controls what people see and hear. A court of law endeavors to avoid precisely what Sibrel does.

...unless you hold the trial in Titusville, FL, a typical jury is not particularly informed on space technology.

Expert witnesses can be called. Sibrel will have a hard time finding a witness sympathetic to his theory that the court will recognize as an expert. So if Sibrel tries to argue, for example, that the LM is unstable, all we need to do is call a Northrup-Grumman engineer to give his expert opinion that it's stable.

Even if there is only a 1% chance that the case would go against NASA, it isn't worth the risk.

Agreed.

Besides, when was the last time a US government agency defended itself against libel?

The government or its agencies as entities don't really have any standing as injured parties in defamation because the most hallowed protections against speech are applied to speech that criticizes the government. But individuals who work for the government and who undergo defamation that is individually directed at them may have standing. I.e., you can't necessarily be sued for libel of you make general unfounded accusations against the IRS, but perhaps you could be sued if you make specific accusations against an individual IRS agent.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

Which brings us back to the problem that no non-celebrities have been called out by name by Sibrel et al. Thus no individual has standing to sue.

Depends on the jurisdiction. In Scotland if you are a member of a group slandered or libelled, you can sue as an individual. Also the defendant doesn't have a right to trial by jury so the case could be heard by a judge or judges.

There has been a spate of US public figures threatening to raise actions in England since the law there is different from the US, to date none have.