Let’s not speculate on what kind of legal or private consequences that these attacks might entail.

However, when someone has been invalidly attacked (according to 2 inquiries)

There has been no invalid attack by Steve. There was no investigation of the actual attacks in either case. If there’s any invalid attack it’s by you on Steve. But unlike you, I’m not about to speculate on what legal or private consequences that might entail.

I have posted some references above proving the burden of proof is with the alleged defamer (still in moderation – 1 link too many).

Most people would NOT take a blog/owner/poster to court – blogs are little more than a chat down the pub.

However, when someone has been invalidly attacked (according to 2 inquiries) and consequently has had his reputation called into question (important for a scientist) and has been hounded until he contemplated suicide (important for a human being) any action he decides to take to restore his life can be surely understood?

By the way using a pseudonym on a blog does not hide your true identity – it can be prised out of the blog, the service provider etc. – Look up “norwich pharmacal”

If you operate a blog, comment on a blog, post material to the Website, post links on the Website, or otherwise make (or allow any third party to make) material available by means of the Website (any such material, “Content”), You are entirely responsible for the content of, and any harm resulting from, that Content.

http://climateaudit.org/2009/12/08/climateaudit-wordpress-com/

One can easily find WordPress’ Terms of Service.

However, If a store owner and payphone owner knowingly facilitate a crime by permitting the use of their phone they would be as guilty of the offence as the principal eg; off course gambling like you see in the 20s movies.

If they don’t know the use the phone is put to, but refuse permission for it’s use when they find out, they’re guilty of nothing.

This analogy does not apply where the telephone is used to express honestly held opinions, except in totalitarian states.

Incidentally, the statement in your wiki reference is correct in substance but incorrectly stated. The burden of proof in all civil actions, including defamation actions, is the same: the party making a positive averment must prove it. There is no reversal of the burden of proof in defamation. If you say x is a murderer you must prove it just as if the Crown alleges X is a murderer the Crown must prove it.

You will have noted that in Godfrey v Demon, back in the last century, notice and takedown was implicitly acknowledged by both parties.

BCA v Singh (Court of Appeal) changes the name of the defence from “fair comment” to “honest opinion” to better express it’s nature, and adopts the US Federal Law rule that “Scientific controversies must be settled by the methods of science rather than by the methods of litigation ……. More papers, more discussion, better data …” etc An allegation of knowingly promoting “Bogus” science was held not to be actionable as it was an honest opinion based on peer reviewed science even though the Plaintiff could point to studies in their favour as an answer to the allegation that the promotion was done “knowing it was bogus”. They knew of adverse science, but simply preferred that in favour of their beliefs and obviously did not disclose the adverse science to the public who put it’s trust in them.

Think about it.

The Plaintiffs have thrown the towel in but the Supreme Court has a case covering similar issues listed, so the law should not be regarded as settled.

Steve only has responsibility for what he says and these silly politically correct witch hunts are all critics have. How pathetic is it that you have to try to go after someone based on comments someone else said. It just shows they have nothing on what he actually says and desperately want anything they can get to try and discredit him.