The defamatory potential of ad hominem criticism: guidance for advocacy in public forumsHugh C. Finn
Curtin Law School, Curtin Business School, Curtin University, GPO Box U1987, Perth, WA 6845, Australia. Email: email@example.com
Pacific Conservation Biology - https://doi.org/10.1071/PC17022
Submitted: 26 July 2017 Accepted: 5 December 2017 Published online: 31 January 2018
Ad hominem criticism seeks to discredit an argument by attacking the qualities of the arguer, rather than the merits of the argument. Although there are compelling reasons to avoid ad hominem criticism, it may sometimes be appropriate as a means of responding to ‘expert’ arguments advanced in public forums. However, conservation biologists should evaluate the defamatory potential of any proposed ad hominem criticism and consider whether the criticism: (1) impugns a person’s reputation in a trade, profession or business; (2) has a factual grounding that is based on evidence that could be used in court; and (3) is better formulated as a statement of opinion than as a statement of fact. From a defamation perspective, the purpose and context for an ad hominem criticism is critical and conservation biologists should always consider whether, if viewed objectively, their conduct in making the criticism would be assessed as fair-minded, reasonable, and supportive of debate over an issue of public interest. Isolated and unsupported ad hominem remarks should not be made. Conservation biologists should also be aware that there are circumstances in which critiques of the methods, analyses, logical approaches, and conclusions of an expert could be said to be defamatory of that person, but that courts also recognise the importance of scientific debate. Conservation biologists should carefully consider the wording of any proposed ad hominem criticism, particularly in terms of the precise facts to be alleged and the particular evaluative words or phrases to be applied, and should also ensure that the criticism has a proper purpose, is well supported, and clearly distinguishes between comments that express an opinion and those that state a fact.
Additional keywords: argument, conservation biology, defamation, environmental decision-making, public debate
ReferencesAdler, J. H. (2016). Making defamation law great again: Michael Mann’s suit may continue. The Washington Post, 22 December 2016. Available at: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/12/22/making-defamation-law-great-again-michael-manns-suit-may-continue/?utm_term=.c697c7acd160 [accessed 27 November 2017].
Adler, J. H. (2017). Whatever happened to Michael Mann’s defamation suit? (2017 edition). The Washington Post, 28 October 2017. Available at: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/10/28/whatever-happened-to-michael-manns-defamation-suit-2017-edition/?utm_term=.83bfb5e22019 [accessed 26 November 2017].
Australian Broadcasting Corporation (2015). Former Queensland premier Campbell Newman drops Alan Jones defamation lawsuit. ABC News, 29 April 2015. Available at: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-04-29/campbell-newman-drops-alan-jones-defamation-case/6431284 [accessed 23 November 2017].
Bachelard, M. (2017). Free speech the loser in Australia’s defamation bonanza. The Sydney Morning Herald, 12 May 2017. Available at: http://www.smh.com.au/national/investigations/free-speech-the-loser-in-australias-defamation-bonanza-20170511-gw2cnc.html [accessed 23 July 2017].
Battaly, H. (2010). Attacking character: ad hominem argument and virtue epistemology. Informal Logic 30, 361–390.
| Attacking character: ad hominem argument and virtue epistemology.CrossRef |
Bennett, T. (2016). Not so straight-talking: how defamation law should treat imputations of homosexuality. The University of Queensland Law Journal 35, 313–330.
Beresford, Q. (2015). ‘The Rise and Fall of Gunns Ltd.’ (NewSouth Publishing: Sydney.)
Bowker, G., Bowker, C., and Baines, D. (2007). Survival rates and causes of mortality in black grouse Tetrao tetrix at Lake Vyrnwy, North Wales, UK. Wildlife Biology 13, 231–237.
| Survival rates and causes of mortality in black grouse Tetrao tetrix at Lake Vyrnwy, North Wales, UK.CrossRef |
Clement, R. (1972). The pesticides controversy. Boston College Environmental Affairs Law Review. Boston College. Law School 2, 445–468.
Dahlman, C., Reidhav, D., and Wahlberg, L. (2013). Fallacies in ad hominem arguments. In ‘Legal Argumentation Theory: Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives’. (Eds C. Dahlman and E. T. Feteris.) pp. 57–70. (Springer: Netherlands.)
Dickman, C. R., and Danks, M. A. (2012). Scientists facing a SLAPP: frivolous litigation stifles public comment. In ‘Science under Siege: Zoology under Threat’. (Eds P. Banks, D. Lunney and C. Dickman.) pp. 61–65. (Royal Zoological Society of New South Wales: Sydney.)
Fournier, D. M. (1995). Establishing evaluative conclusions: a distinction between general and working logic. New Directions for Evaluation 1995, 15–32.
| Establishing evaluative conclusions: a distinction between general and working logic.CrossRef |
Gray, T., and Martin, B. (2006). Defamation and the art of backfire. Deakin Law Review 11, 115–136.
| Defamation and the art of backfire.CrossRef |
Green, J. (2014). Surely defamation is the real threat to free speech. ABC News (online), 3 April 2014. Available at: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-04-03/green—defamation/5362868 [accessed 23 July 2017].
Hoggan, J., and Litwin, G. (2016). ‘I’m Right and You’re an Idiot: The Toxic State of Public Discourse and How to Clean It Up.’ (New Society Publishers: Gabriola Island, British Columbia.)
Horton, C. C., Peterson, T. R., Banerjee, P., and Peterson, M. J. (2016). Credibility and advocacy in conservation science. Conservation Biology 30, 23–32.
| Credibility and advocacy in conservation science.CrossRef |
Jansen, L. A., and Sulmasy, D. P. (2003). Bioethics, conflicts of interest, the limits of transparency. The Hastings Center Report 33, 40–43.
| Bioethics, conflicts of interest, the limits of transparency.CrossRef |
Johnson, C. M. (2009). Reconsidering the ad hominem. Philosophy (London, England) 84, 251–266.
| Reconsidering the ad hominem.CrossRef |
Kahan, D. (2010). Fixing the communications failure. Nature 463, 296–297.
| Fixing the communications failure.CrossRef | 1:CAS:528:DC%2BC3cXovVGhsg%3D%3D&md5=78f21d64d6dc208dac6016e2dd4b0d4fCAS |
Kahan, D. M. (2013). Ideology, motivated reasoning, and cognitive reflection. Judgment and Decision Making 8, 407–424.
Lewandowsky, S., and Bishop, D. (2016). Don’t let transparency damage science. Nature 529, 459–461.
| Don’t let transparency damage science.CrossRef | 1:CAS:528:DC%2BC28Xhs12isrY%3D&md5=c91f161105498dd22d0e6b404463b7e3CAS |
Lunde, C. (2014). Prejudice sells: Uthman Badar, the media and the allure of modern ‘ad hominem’. ABC Religion and Ethics (online), 15 September 2014. Available at: http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2014/09/15/4087913.htm [accessed 11 December 2017].
Mandel, D. R., and Tetlock, P. E. (2016). Debunking the myth of value-neutral virginity: toward truth in scientific advertising. Frontiers in Psychology 7, 451.
| Debunking the myth of value-neutral virginity: toward truth in scientific advertising.CrossRef |
Martin, B. (2017). Preparing for advocacy, resisting attack. Pacific Conservation Biology , .
| Preparing for advocacy, resisting attack.CrossRef |
Nichols, T. (2017). ‘The Death of Expertise: The Campaign against Established Knowledge and Why It Matters.’ (Oxford University Press: New York.)
Ogle, G. (2007). Beating a SLAPP suit. Alternative Law Journal 32, 71–74.
| Beating a SLAPP suit.CrossRef |
Ogle, G. (2010). Anti-SLAPP law reform in Australia. Review of European Community & International Environmental Law 19, 35–44.
| Anti-SLAPP law reform in Australia.CrossRef |
Pearson, M. (2012). ‘Blogging and Tweeting without Getting Sued: A Global Guide to the Law for Anyone Writing Online.’ (Allen & Unwin: Sydney.)
Pielke, R. A., Jr. (2007). ‘The Honest Broker: Making Sense of Science in Policy and Politics. (Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.)
Pullan, R. (1994). ‘Guilty Secrets: Free Speech and Defamation in Australia.’ (Pascal Press: Sydney.)
Rolph, D. (2016). Social media and defamation law pose threats to free speech, and it’s time for reform. The Conversation, 15 September 2016. Available at: https://theconversation.com/social-media-and-defamation-law-pose-threats-to-free-speech-and-its-time-for-reform-64864 [accessed 23 July 2017].
Ross, L., and Nisbett, R. E. (2011). ‘The Person and the Situation: Perspectives of Social Psychology.’ (Pinter & Martin Ltd: London.)
Scriven, M. (1995). The logic of evaluation and evaluation practice. New Directions for Evaluation 1995, 49–70.
| The logic of evaluation and evaluation practice.CrossRef |
Scriven, M. (2015). The exact role of value judgment in science. In ‘Ethical Issues in Scientific Research: An Anthology’. (Eds E. Erwin, S. Gendin, and L. Kleiman.) pp. 29–50. (Routledge: New York.)
Sinatra, G. M., Kienhues, D., and Hofer, B. K. (2014). Addressing challenges to public understanding of science: epistemic cognition, motivated reasoning, and conceptual change. Educational Psychologist 49, 123–138.
| Addressing challenges to public understanding of science: epistemic cognition, motivated reasoning, and conceptual change.CrossRef |
Solomons, M. (2015). Campbell Newman, Jeff Seeney sue Alan Jones for defamation; Clive Palmer offers to help pay shock jock’s legal fees. ABC News, 23 January 2015. Available at: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-01-23/campbell-newman-and-jeff-seeney-suing-alan-jones-for-defamation/6041274 [accessed 23 November 2017].
Tallis, H., and Lubchenco, J. (2014). A call for inclusive conservation. Nature 515, 27–28.
| A call for inclusive conservation.CrossRef | 1:CAS:528:DC%2BC2cXitFanu7%2FL&md5=9d65f18972161246c5f6adc30a15496aCAS |
Thomas, H. (2015). Alan Jones ‘out of control’ on air: Campbell Newman. The Australian, 30 October 2015. Available at: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/state-politics/alan-jones-out-of-control-on-air-campbell-newman/news-story/2d3677b4ef730fda13089c70c5050c18 [accessed 23 November 2017].
Walters, B. (2003). ‘Slapping on the Writs: Defamation, Developers and Community Activism.’ (University of New South Wales Press: Sydney.)
Walton, D. (1998). ‘Ad Hominem Arguments.’ (University of Alabama Press: Tuscaloosa, AL.)
Walton, D. (2008). ‘Informal Logic: A Pragmatic Approach.’ (Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.)
Walton, D., Reed, C., and Macagno, F. (2008). ‘Argumentation Schemes.’ (Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.)