An open letter to David Kirby and Dan Olmsted about the Kathleen Seidel subpoena
Orac has written this open letter. Please spread it far and wide.
Dear Mr. Kirby and Mr. Olmsted:
You are both journalists. I realize that neither of you at present work for the traditional press and that both of you seem to devote yourselves mainly to blogging (Mr. Olmsted at the Age of Autism and Mr. Kirby at the Huffington Post), but I have to believe that you both still consider yourselves to be at heart journalists. That is why I am writing this to you and posting it publicly on my blog. If you’ve ever read any of my posts on this issue, you probably realize that I strongly disagree with your positions and that at times I have been quite harsh in my judgment of articles you have both written. I am, however, hoping that for this one issue, upon which (I hope) we can all agree that you will for the moment put that aside and consider what I have to say. I am appealing for your condemnation of what has been done to autism blogger Kathleen Seidel.
The letter continues at Respectful Insolence
I hope that Olmsted and Kirby respond. As Orac points out later in his letter, if a vaccine injury lawyer is allowed to silence his critics with a subpoena, government and industry lawyers will take note and journalist bloggers like Olmsted and Kirby could be next in line.
Pingback by Kathleen Seidel Has Received a Sub-Poena: Streisand, Spartacus, Shoemaker, They Start with S and End the Same Way « Holford Watch: Patrick Holford, nutritionism and bad science | April 6th, 2008
[...] Kathleen Seidel subpoena Galactic Poolhall Autism Lawsuit Mike Stanton of Action for Autism (again) An open letter to David Kirby and Dan Olmsted about the Kathleen Seidel subpoena points to Orac’s Open Letter (above, [...]
Comment by David Andrews M. Ed. (Distinction) | April 6th, 2008
Doubt they’d even care to support her.
Even though, ethically, they should.
Comment by john fryer | April 7th, 2008
Nobody has anything to fear from telling the truth.
Mr Kirby and Mr Olmsted are crytal clear in their views.
Mercury has NO PLACE in our vaccines and no place in childrens vaccines as of logic.
People like Orac and many others obstinately believe it is good and proper to inject the worlds most deadly non radioactive element into a 1 day old baby.
How can we make progress when people obstinately condone the use of toxin injection into babies not capable of making rational decisions that affect their lives?
People must be responsible for what they say not what others say.
Mr Kirby and Mr Olmsted are committed to safer vaccines and the recognition of harm done by unsafe vaccines and by mercury pollution.
Kathleen Seidel has nothing to fear from honesty and truth but I feel her views like that of Orac need explaining. Why do they support the use of deadly toxic materials injected into our babies?
I fail to see why anyone who understands the true cost of injecting mercury into babies would even wish to support those who seek to continue such practice?
I would even support those who ask questions of such people.
Comment by Mike | April 7th, 2008
John
the issue here is not specifically about mercury in vaccines. It is whether or not a lawyer should be able to use a subpoena to silence or punish one of his critics.
Kathleen could supply all the information he asks for and it would not incriminate her in any way. BUT why should she have to? This is a civil case in which Kathleen has no involvement.
I would be equally concerned if the DoJ was using a similar subpoena to force Kirby to reveal his sources. Science not the law should settle these questions.
Comment by laurentius-rex | April 8th, 2008
Point is look at Al Fayed, all the evidence in the world will not convince him that he is wrong.
Clifford Shoemaker is asking for the impossible, I presume he wants to find information that supports his case, unless he is extremely corrupt and cynical he might be expecting to find it, but if he does not, would he be satisfied?
Comment by Mike | April 9th, 2008
Kirby and Olmsted have responded to the open letter
We both take this matter very seriously, and strongly oppose any effort to subpoena the records of Ms. Kathleen Seidel. We have also clearly expressed our feelings to Mr. Shoemaker. While we may not agree with her opinions, we consider Ms. Seidel to be a colleague. Rights to privacy, and to free speech as guaranteed by the First Amendment, must be upheld for all. We urge Mr. Shoemaker to reconsider, and drop this action against Ms. Seidel.
David Kirby
Dan Olmsted
Comment by David Andrews M. Ed. (Distinction) | April 9th, 2008
“Doubt they’d even care to support her.”
Glad, actually, to see them prove me wrong!
Comment by laurentius-rex | April 10th, 2008
The point is that everyone of any persuasion needs to be alert to the threats that lawyers pose to the stability of our community.
Who knows for instance what would come out of the woodwork if one were to subpoena John Best Jnr to produce his email correspondence between himself and those who post regularly on his blog?
Perhaps the good guys need to start slapping too.
For my part I would be interested to know what international telegraphy agreements and data protection provisions, international trade conventions and such like that Mr Shoemakers subpoena falls foul of in mentioning non US bloggers. Could the federal trades commission or whoever call him to account for attempting restraint of trade? I dunno, but someone must, and that would probably be a lawyer, for whom there would presumably be a fat fee waiting
(unless they are of a sunny disposition and would share)
Comment by Mike | April 11th, 2008
As JBJr is permanently banned from commenting here I am deleting all comments that refer to him in personal terms.
Comment by David Andrews M. Ed. (Distinction) | April 12th, 2008
“Glad, actually, to see them prove me wrong!”
Someone commenting on Joseph’s blog made a good point that these two didn’t actually repudiate Shoemaker’s actions.
They haven’t gone very far towards proving me wrong.
If they make it clear that Shoemaker was in the wrong, then I might let them off the hook.
Comment by David Andrews M. Ed. (Distinction) | April 22nd, 2008
Subpoena has be quashed