- News Home
17 April 2014 12:48 pm ,
Vol. 344 ,
Officials last week revealed that the U.S. contribution to ITER could cost $3.9 billion by 2034—roughly four times the...
An experimental hepatitis B drug that looked safe in animal trials tragically killed five of 15 patients in 1993. Now,...
Using the two high-quality genomes that exist for Neandertals and Denisovans, researchers find clues to gene activity...
A new report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concludes that humanity has done little to slow...
Astronomers have discovered an Earth-sized planet in the habitable zone of a red dwarf—a star cooler than the sun—500...
Three years ago, Jennifer Francis of Rutgers University proposed that a warming Arctic was altering the behavior of the...
- 17 April 2014 12:48 pm , Vol. 344 , #6181
- About Us
Exclusive: Defendants in Jared Diamond Case Deny All Accusations
15 October 2009 3:16 pm
Last April, two tribesmen from Papua New Guinea sued Jared Diamond, the well-known biologist and author, for $10 million in damages, claiming that he had defamed them in an April 2008 article in The New Yorker titled “Vengeance Is Ours.” The article described a revenge war that supposedly began when a pig dug up someone’s garden, and went on for 3 years, resulting in the deaths of 29 people. The plaintiffs, Daniel Wemp and Isum Mandingo—who included The New Yorker’s owner, Advance Publications Inc., as a codefendant in the suit—alleged that Diamond’s account of the tribal war, in which they were allegedly involved, contained numerous errors, harmed their reputations, and endangered the life of Wemp, who was described as organizing the war in Diamond’s article.
Today Yesterday, attorneys for Diamond and Advance Publications filed their answer to the lawsuit in New York state court, denying all of the allegations. The defendants’ attorneys listed 34 reasons, called “affirmative defenses,” why they should prevail in the lawsuit. Among them are the contentions that the plaintiffs were not defamed and had not suffered any harm or actual injury to their reputations; that Diamond and The New Yorker had not acted with “actual malice” or with knowledge that The New Yorker story was false; that the article was “substantially true” and thus protected under the First and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution; and that to the extent to which the plaintiffs did suffer any harm or damages, “it is the result of their own actions.”
No trial date has been set.