- News Home
5 December 2013 11:26 am ,
Vol. 342 ,
Researchers have been hot on the trail of the elusive Denisovans, a type of ancient human known only by their DNA and...
Thousands of scientists in the Russian Academy of Sciences (RAS) are about to lose their jobs as a result of the...
Dyslexia, a learning disability that hinders reading, hasn't been associated with deficits in vision, hearing, or...
Exotic, elusive, and dangerous, snakes have fascinated humankind for millennia. They can be hard to find, yet their...
Researchers have sequenced and analyzed the first two snake genomes, which represent two evolutionary extremes. The...
Snake venoms are remarkably complex mixtures that can stun or kill prey within minutes. But more and more researchers...
At age 30, Dutch biologist Freek Vonk has built up a respectable career as a snake scientist. But in his home country,...
Since arriving on the island of Guam in the 1940s, the brown tree snake ( Boiga irregularis ) has extirpated native...
- 5 December 2013 11:26 am , Vol. 342 , #6163
- 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.