Speaking as the author of a book (have I mentioned that here?), I understand how personally authors take bad reviews. And I find the idea of suing the reviewers for their many obvious errors mildly entertaining. But I am gobsmacked by the imagination — not to mention the chutzpah — it takes for an author who doesn’t like a review to demand that it be taken off line, to refuse a proffered right of reply, and then to sue — not the reviewer but the publisher of the review. And for criminal libel no less. But that’s what Karin Calvo-Goller is said to have done, in a stunning post by the victim of her ire. It begins:
My entire professional life has been in the law, but nothing had prepared me for this. I have been a tenured faculty member at the finest institutions, most recently Harvard and NYU. I have held visiting appointments from Florence to Singapore, from Melbourne to Jerusalem. I have acted as legal counsel to governments on four continents, handled cases before the highest jurisdictions and arbitrated the most complex disputes among economic ‘super powers.’
Last week, for the first time I found myself in the dock, as a criminal defendant.
And it just gets better. Or worse. As the defendant points out, Calvo-Goller won’t get big damages from bringing a criminal action against him, but the French state in its majesty can fine him to vindicate her honor; and the richer he is, the more her honor will cost him. Here’s the longer version, which quotes the professor demonstrating her command of first amendment law as follows:
I am aware of the extent of freedom of expression under the First Amendment to the
Constitution of the United States (freedom which, as you know, is less extensive in
EU countries). However, the extent of that freedom ends where its exercise damages
the reputation of an individual.
I’m tempted to remark on the wisdom in general of taking human rights lessons from professors steeped in European and United Nations law, but I’m more interesting in a shorter question: What can Karin Calvo-Goller possibly be thinking? Already, a search of her name on Google yields in third place an entry linking “Calvo-Goller” to the phrase “an idiot and a fascist jerk”, thusly:
Given that Calvo-Goller’s actions threaten to injure her reputation by making her look like an idiot and a fascistic jerk, I am hereby charging her with criminal libel against herself.
Really. Someone probably should let Karin Calvo-Goller know how the Internet works and about, you know, Google and stuff. Because if she’s worried about her reputation, suppressing book reviews in the European Journal of International Law is just the beginning of the job she’s cut out for herself.
PS In 2010, Congress adopted the SPEECH Act, which refuses enforcement of libel tourism awards, so perhaps the United States can look forward to a new wave of “libel refugees.”
UPDATE: Original post only discussed the failed 2008 attempt to enact libel tourism protections, not the successful 2010 enactment.
_anonymous_ says:
In regards to the 2008 libel-tourism bill that died in committee, I believe a successor of that bill was later enacted: The SPEECH ACT of 2010 (signed into law by President Obama on August 10, 2010).
February 21, 2011, 7:45 amWidmerpool says:
I’m posting just because I like to say the name, “Karin Calvo-Goller.” It sounds like an expensive, invasive medical procedure involving the colon. “I warned you Mr. Rootle that if you didn’t lay off the fried bacon burgers you’d have to undergo the Karin Calvo-Goller procedure and have a permanent tube attached from your mouth to your colon.”
February 21, 2011, 8:33 amStewart Baker says:
Thanks to anonymous for the tip. I’ve revised the postscript. And to Widmerpool for an image that, luckily, comes after breakfast.
February 21, 2011, 8:37 amDr. Weevil says:
If anyone wants to skip the arguments and head straight for the actual review to judge for himself, it is here (PDF). It is (a) very short, and (b) deeply disappointing for connoisseurs of invective.
In my field (Latin), A. E. Housman alone wrote at least thirty that were nastier, often far nastier. Example bits that will be intelligible to non-Latinists: (a) “Books such as the one under review are little better than interruptions to our studies.” (b) “All of his arguments are two-edged, but both edges are quite blunt.” (The second is quoted from memory and may not be word-for-word accurate.)
February 21, 2011, 8:40 amPersonFromPorlock says:
I begin to have some sympathy for the plaintiff. Firing a broadside and sailing grandly on is just the sort of contemptuous behavior that makes ‘getting their attention’ with criminal charges attractive.
February 21, 2011, 8:55 amdearieme says:
Mind you, there is surely amusement to be had at the spectacle of a resident of the USA complaining about some other country trying to extend its jurisdiction internationally.
February 21, 2011, 9:51 amJoe says:
@PersonFromPorlock
If you read the editor’s piece, you can see that he offered Calvo-Goller the right of reply which would be posted not in a letters section away from the original piece, but directly adjacent to the original review.
She refused.
February 21, 2011, 9:55 amMM says:
I’m with Dr. Weevil: the review is remarkably (and disappointingly) tame. I think people in my field (history) would see it as moderately critical, but unexceptional.
February 21, 2011, 10:00 amM. Gross says:
As I’ve commented on this matter elsewhere, I can’t believe the defendant decided to show up, in France, to fight the charges.
Perhaps the defendant is very fond of France and it would break his heart to never travel there, but otherwise, I see little reason to go subject myself to the jurisdiction of a country that obviously lacks it absent my presence.
February 21, 2011, 10:11 amPQuincy says:
The self-destructive quality of the professor’s suit — trying to preserve her ‘reputation’ by ensuring that thousands of people read the review in question and note that she is accused only of failing to rise to an occasion and of producing a pedestrian rather than valuable work — seems clear.
As for PersonFromPorlock’s point: the defendants are absolutely correct to refuse to engage with the substance of the review. The whole point of book reviews is that they should both describe and critically engage with the work. This requires scholarly judgment, and such judgment must not and cannot be subject to review by a court, because a court, by definition, lacks the substantive expertise to carry out such a review. A book review may be mistaken, and readers are assumed to have (or be gaining, as students) their own expertise in assessing both the work and the review. Judges and juries do not.
Clearly, a review might contain libelous statements: but these could never be about the BOOK being reviewed, but only about the author. You can’t libel a book, after all. Thus, any discussion of the merits of statements about the book and the author’s contributions to it are a matter of academic professionalism, not of personal reputation, and any court’s involvement would be destructive and futile.
Usually, I worry about American judges lacking any sense of the law’s limitations and cheerfully jumping into issues for which they have neither expertise nor responsibility, especially in academia. Here, it seems, French judges are being asked to take such as step, which we may hope they will wisely decline to do.
February 21, 2011, 10:18 amCornellian says:
I am aware of the extent of freedom of expression under the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States (freedom which, as you know, is less extensive in EU countries). However, the extent of that freedom ends where its exercise damages the reputation of an individual.
Does Calvo-Goller count as a public figure?
February 21, 2011, 10:38 amBrian Thomson says:
You seem to have misread the article. The “steadfast refusal” that Prof. Weiler describes was his defense strategy at trial, some years after the criminal charges had been preferred. In exchanges before that point he seems to have been reasoned and responsive and, although he didn’t give Karin Calvo-Goller the answer she wanted, he did not simply ignore her complaint.
February 21, 2011, 11:00 amSteven Den Beste says:
This is a job for the “Streisand Effect“.
February 21, 2011, 11:51 amDotar Sojat says:
Isn’t that a Cardassian name?
February 21, 2011, 12:16 pmAlex Korotkin says:
For a seemingly obscure case, this managed to make Liptak’s column in New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/22/us/22bar.html?hp I will let the other readers comment with respect to the similarities between the article and professor’s blogpost.
February 21, 2011, 12:56 pmVisitor says:
Given that freedom of speech is protected by the European Convention on Human Rights could this particular criminal case be turned into an abuse of process case allowing the Defendant to file criminal charges for attempted human rights violations?
February 21, 2011, 1:51 pmJoe says:
Stewart, were you by chance listening to the NPR program A Way Wtih Words this Sunday?
February 21, 2011, 1:59 pmKL says:
The reviews at amazon are going for the three wolf and tuscany milk record
February 21, 2011, 2:59 pmKL says:
AK is right looks like plagiarism
February 21, 2011, 3:00 pmDagney77 says:
An example must be made of this woman, this Karin Calvo-Goller. Second-rate law professors such as she must not be allowed to stymie free speech.
We will speak our truth with boldness, Calvo-Goller. Molon Labe!
February 21, 2011, 3:22 pmKirk Parker says:
Dr. Weevil,
Thanks for the Houseman quotes, but nothing can ever beat my favorite: “This book’s covers are too far apart.”
February 21, 2011, 3:59 pmM. Gross says:
I don’t think the NYTimes article is a case of plagiarism… a short article containing the facts of the matter is almost certain to look similar to another.
February 21, 2011, 4:02 pma-pat says:
Plagiarism of who?
Stewart Baker? Eric E. Johnson from three weeks ago? Brian Leiter from a week ago? Techdirt from a year ago?
The case is not so obscure.
February 21, 2011, 4:08 pmDedicated_Dad says:
What a c**t.
Seriously – I’m normally not one for the ad-hominem, much less violence, but I hate litigious, fascistic bullying even more.
This b!+(# needs a beating.
A new low for Academia, and human-beings and -relations in general.
Being a crybaby is disgusting enough, but to bring a CRIMINAL charge?!
I hereby vow to do all I can to ensure her idiocy is a cautionary tale to all future generations, and her name becomes synonymous with “cry-baby b!+(#.”
If all goes well, I hope we’ll all someday hear lecture-halls full of students use the phrase “calvo-goller” the way they currently do various four-letter expletives and the adverb “LIKE.”
I imagine something along these lines:
“Duude! Did you hear what that calvo-gollering calvo-goller said to me? I ought to kick her calvo-goller like a soccer-ball and then rub my calvo-goller all over her calvo-gollering face!
I mean SERIOUSLY!! What a calvo-gollering calvo-goller!!”
Yeah, I know — needs work — but it’s a start.
DD
February 21, 2011, 4:11 pmM. Simon says:
I recently did a post on the meaning of “Santorum” – I’m not even going to link here to the wiki entry for “Santorum”. But (heh) you can find our more at:
http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/2011/02/rick-santorum-has-anal-problem.html
The title does give a hint.
February 21, 2011, 4:25 pmLitigator London says:
I was a little puzzled by this too. But then the name of the lady rang a little bell.
I think the lady in question is the wife of Maitre Michel A, Collo. Both were candidates in the 2006 French legislative elections for the seats reserved for French citizens living overseas on the Liste Action – Défense des Français d’Israël
In 2003 Maitre Michel Calvo (then of the Paris bar) filed a complaint against Yasser Arafat alleging he was guilty of crimes against humanity, genocide, terrorism, murder and criminal conspiracy. When the complaint was dismissed, husband and wife wrote a book about it Le Dossier Arafat. It may have been translated into English as well.
I see from Mrs Calvo-Goller’s Resumé on the web site of the institution where she teaches, that she was admitted to the Israeli bar in 1991 and this Article on property acquisition in Israel shows the husband and wife practising law together as “Calvo & Calvo Goller” in Jerusalem.
It’s one thing to collect the fees for representing a litigant – quite another to be a litigant.
I would have thought that any lawyer worthy of the title would know better than to become a plaintiff in a defamation case, since one of the first rules of defamation suits is that the complainant may very well find, that the reputation sought to be protected emerges greatly diminished.
[A good recent example would be the case of Irving v. Penguin Books Limited, Deborah E. Lipstat [2000] EWHC QB 115. At the end of his meticulous Judgment the trial judge summarised his findings on the plaintiff in words which put an end to any claim David Irving might ever have had to be a credible historian of the period :
“The charges which I have found to be substantially true include the charges that Irving has for his own ideological reasons persistently and deliberately misrepresented and manipulated historical evidence; that for the same reasons he has portrayed Hitler in an unwarrantedly favourable light, principally in relation to his attitude towards and responsibility for the treatment of the Jews; that he is an active Holocaust denier; that he is anti-semitic and racist and that he associates with right wing extremists who promote neo-Nazism.”]
So what is this folly of taking on a professional colleague in defamation for what seems a prety mild review?
UNLESS, of course, the plan is to write another book about a trial.
February 21, 2011, 4:41 pmtheprez98 says:
Amazon.com now has 29 reviews for her book, 24 of which are 1-star.
:-)
February 21, 2011, 5:12 pmBored Lawyer says:
Quaeres:
1. Is truth a defense under French libel law?
February 21, 2011, 5:13 pm2. Does French libel differentiate between opinion and fact?
Dr. Weevil says:
The 5-star reviews at Amazon (3 at the moment) are amusing, too. I hope they don’t increase her chances of winning her suit. It certainly seems to have brought her quite a bit of ‘public loathing, odium, and contempt’. (I thought that was a set phrase in law, but Google seems to disagree: have I mixed up the words?)
February 21, 2011, 5:40 pmLe Plume says:
Wow… Reading this blog occasionally as a complete outsider, being a liberal-leaning engineer from France, I find myself in a weird situation: I know some case-law that might apply to this case! Well, at least, I know of it.
A few years ago, a reviewer and the editor of a French online journal devoted to American studies were sued for by the author of a book which had received a rather contentious review. I don’t know the legal details but the author of the book did lose, appealed and lost again (that was in 2007, I think). So I guess the reviewer in case here should rest easy… Can’t find the exact reference of the case though.
As an answer to Bored Layer’s comment: as far as I know the main thing for the defendant is to prove his good faith; proving that the allegations are true is an obvious way to do that.
February 21, 2011, 6:02 pmShelby says:
I wish Ms. Calvo-Goller had brought these charges in the ICC instead.
February 21, 2011, 7:00 pmLitigator London says:
Over the time I have been commenting here, I have discovered something of the sophistication of the advertising programmes which display banners on the site adapted both to the subject of the thread and to the country from which one logs in. UK readers of this thread are presently getting a banner offering the services of specialist UK defamation lawyers – clicking on it brings up this page Do you need specialist defamation law solicitors?
Scrolling down to the foot of the page, one finds this gem:-
“Contact Law is regulated by the Ministry of Justice in respect of regulated claims management activities, and any solicitor to whom we refer you is an independent professional, from whom you will receive impartial and confidential advice. You are free to choose another solicitor. In the event that you instruct a solicitor, Contact Law will be paid a referral fee by the solicitor that is equivalent to 15% of profit costs on your case and/or an annual membership fee to participate in our solicitor network, but this will not be added to your bill.”
Ye Gods! How I miss the days when it was considered unprofessional to tout for business – directly or indirectly!
February 21, 2011, 7:01 pmDebrah says:
Brutally hilarious!
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
But this is not good for the well-being of an obsessive-compulsive neat freak……
……or for my keyboard while I’m snacking!
February 21, 2011, 7:19 pmDebrah says:
Simon–
I hate to tell you, but that phrase has been around for a while.
Just another obnoxious entry in the annals of the culture wars.
February 21, 2011, 7:26 pmOne Man's View says:
I hope someone will post the results next week when the judgment is released.
February 21, 2011, 7:41 pmStewart Baker says:
No, I missed it.
February 21, 2011, 8:08 pmRoscoe says:
I don’t get the whole thing. Don’t they have prosecutorial (or inqusitorial if there is such a word) discretion in France? Do they have to prosecute every case that is filed? Or do they have way too many judges with time on their hands?
Anyway, you would have to think that there must be some real crime they should be spending their time on.
February 21, 2011, 9:11 pmFat Man says:
We usually expect Israelis to be made of tougher stuff, but she is a girl, so she can’t be criticized for acting like one.
Weiler, OTOH, is a complete idiot. The only respect the French court deserved was a polite letter telling them that they had no jurisdiction in the matter, and declining their offer of hospitality.
On the other hand, he is a liberal law prof, so it would do my heart good if he were convicted, and thrown in the slam, or perhaps chained to an oar in the galleys.
February 21, 2011, 9:32 pmLitigator London says:
Ah! You may have forgotten that the complainant, Mrs Collo-Goller unquestionably has dual nationality (French and Israeli) and that is sufficient to provide the French Court with a basis for jurisdiction under Article 113-7 of the French Criminal Code. It seems to me that the defendant, Professor Weiler could indeed have raised arguments on the complainant’s choice of forum, but as his post on the EJIL blog In the Dock in Paris makes clear, he deliberately chose not to do so.
“In preparing a defense we faced a delicate challenge. The case was otiose for two reasons: It was in our view an egregious instance of ‘forum shopping,’ legalese for libel tourism. We wanted it thrown out. But if successful, the Court would never get to the merits – and it was important to challenge this hugely dangerous attack on academic freedom and liberty of expression. Reversing custom, we specifically asked the Court not to examine our jurisdictional challenge as a preliminary matter but to join it to the case on the merits so that it would have the possibility to pronounce on both issues.”
Professor Weiler goes on to say that the trial was very fair. Let us hope that the judgment will be fair too.
February 22, 2011, 4:10 amScathing Review « Insomniac memos says:
[...] By Carl Sanders An interesting story about a scholar who is suing because a review of her book was negative (and not all that negative, [...]
February 22, 2011, 10:53 amReaderY says:
What’s remarkable about the whole thing is that the review doesn’t accuse the plaintiff of anything really bad, it merely accuses her of writing a second rate rather than a first rate book.
Nobody has a right to be regarded as a genius or a superstar. Most people are mediocre most of the time. It is extremely unlikely that any Western legal system, even one with fewer speech protections than the U.S., would find a reviewer criminally punishable for writing a review not finding the plaintiff to be the genius of the age. For the plaintiff to think otherwise was, how shall we put this, not very smart. She seems to have allowed her ego to completely get away with her, and made a public display of herself in the act of doing so.
February 22, 2011, 11:07 amDr Michel CALVO says:
I am Karin’s husband.
The case against Arafat and others filed by french lawyers in the name of French victims of terrorists suicide bombing is still pending in France.
But you all know that in several countries, as in France, the polical aspects are taken into account. It is still a sleeping case and … one day might come…
What you all say here above is very interresting, but sometime insulting. I presume that you are not all part of the academic world.
But it is not because Karin is not “politically correct” by suing a Professor Weiler (from NYU) for libel before French Court and that Pr. Weiler is a “lib” that the “Fat Man” should say what he says. Never rejoice of what happens to others.
Perhaps should you all reduce your hate level and be positive and discuss : “What should we expect from a book reviewer?”
In a few days you will find on the internet, since Karin has no intention to limit my freedom of expression nor anyone else’s, my personal opinion after the court hearing.
Dr Michel CALVO
February 22, 2011, 12:32 pmAttorney at Law
Jerusalem
(MCJ – New York University – 1974)
Bravo « Internet Scofflaw says:
[...] protects me perfectly well, because I have no assets abroad, but those who do have assets abroad can still be victims of libel tourism. Congress should extend the law so that those who lose money to libel [...]
February 22, 2011, 6:25 pmLitigator London says:
While I am sure that Maitre Collo will wish to support his wife and law office partner, “a” Professor Weiler sounds badly when applied to “the” Professor Weiler.
As his Wikipedia entry shows Professor Joseph Halevi Horowitz Weiler is one of the most distinguished legal academics of our day.
But since he has chosen to intervene, perhaps Maitre Collo can enlighten us on just what were the perceived juridical advantages in commencing the lawsuit in France rather than in the country of principal publication, or the country of Professor Weiler’s residence, or in Israel as the country where Mrs Collo-Goller presently teaches and practices law.
As Maitre Collo will surely be aware, Professors Gilles Cuniberti et Herwig Hofmann who both teach law at the University of Luxembourg wrote this article in Le Monde La France, censeur mondial de la recherche universitaire? in which they observed that the reason for the choice of forum was probably a peculiarity of French criminal procedure:
“De fait, si dans cette affaire la justice française a été saisie, c’est probablement en raison d’une spécificité de la procédure pénale française, le pouvoir de la victime de déclencher l’action pénale sans aucun contrôle.”
Indeed. While I note Maitre Collo’s bare assertion that his wife has “no intention to limit [his] freedom of expression nor anyone else’s”, I cannot but observe that some people might find the institution of criminal proceedings for defamation somewhat inhibitory of freedom of expression.
Maitre Collo will therefore understand that his assertion may be taken by many “cum grano salis”. Le Tribunal appréciera.
But in a way, it is not just Professor Weiler who has been on trial, but also the French criminal justice system – just as the English system has been criticised for permitting “libel tourism”.
February 22, 2011, 7:53 pmLe Plume says:
Given the case I referred to earlier, I think there is no question that there will be no condemnation. Unfortunately, unless he counterattacks by suing for wrongful accusation (“dénoncation calomnieuse”), there is also no way for him to recoup his expenses. Clearly, there’ a flaw in our system there.
February 23, 2011, 6:33 pmDr Michel CALVO says:
Dr Michel CALVO (Karin’s husband)
Karin did not expect that Pr Weiler would put on the internet all the letters exchanged and that he would ask all for letter of indignation/support for the Court. Pr Weiler could easily imagine that this could lead to a witch hunt and insults.
He did it!
Note that Pr Weiler knew two successive deans of the Academic Center of Law and Business of Ramat Gan (who was created by Hebrew University professors). (Karin taught at the Hebrew University 15 years and there are academic relations). Let your imagination work..to understand what she felt when she saw the review and all the bad publicity made.
Pr Weiler had plenty of time (4 years) to analyse with his French Lawyer (Office of a former Mitterand’s Minister, Kiejman) the legal situation and try to contact Karin’s lawyer, Dr David Dassa Le Deist, to settle the matter and find an agreement on a comment to be placed next to Pr Weigend’s review.
He did not contact him.
NO! He even asked the Court to render a judgement on the merit even though the Court would judge that it has no jurisdiction!
Concerning the articles of the Luxembourg University Professeurs, they publish them in June of last year and it was in June that the case was to be examined by the Court but Pr. Weiler asked for a postponement.
Sure that these professors wanted to interfere with French justice. It is something that is accepted in France.
We have more freedom in France than in some countries (sub-judice…)
Any freedom has limitations. In the case of diffamation, for exemple, the limitation is made to protect the right to reputation. Every one understand that. I have never been taught by any law professor (French, American or Israeli) that seniors lecturers cannot sue professors for diffamation. I learned that we are all equal before law!
Perhaps not! (when I read what is posted on the internet).
The novelty is that Karin dared to exercise her right.You cannot imagine the number of lecturers (who sent her emails) who complained that they have been discriminated and attacked and had to shut up. Otherwise …
If Karin was a professor and not a senior lecturer,I do not think that she would have spent time and money to seek “Justice”.
Since I am 64 years old (as Karin) and have some experience as an international lawyer and ICC international arbitrator, may I state that the same way that american law must protect americans, French law protects French citizens. And Karin is French and has a reputation to protect mainly in France.
Pr Weiler knew that Karin is French. She has published most of her books and articles in French.
He even said that she is a “friend”.
Note that the Karin’s book that was published by Kluwer-Martinus Nijhoff was not sent to Pr Weiler nor to Globallawbook.
Who knows who gave it to him and who asked him to send it, if someone asked him, to Pr Weigend, (who took more than 7 months to write 39 lines).
Perhaps this debate should not only be on what we should expect from a good book reviewer as I mentioned it before.
All the great american law professors who think that Karin is an enemy of Academic Freedom are mislead. They should think about an international convention on diffamation/libel on the Internet, instead of having each country protect their citizens (and by extension from foreign judgments on libel as far as the N.Y. State and the US are concerned).
Perhaps the world will be better off.
By the way, in addition to my Sorbonne doctorate, I graduated from NYU (MCJ – 1974).
February 24, 2011, 11:54 amDr Michel CALVO says:
Dr Michel CALVO (Karin’s husband)
February 24, 2011, 11:57 amIt is by mistake that I wrote “a” professor Weiler.
I appologize.
Dr Michel CALVO says:
Dr Michel CALVO
February 24, 2011, 12:00 pmDiffamation is not a crime.
It is a “Délit”.
Dr. Karin Calvo-Goller Fights Western Free-Speech Imperialism | Popehat says:
[...] in a French publication, France’s criminal justice system allowed Dr. Calvo-Goller to file a criminal libel complaint against Professor Weiler for his review, and conducted a criminal trial of Professor Weiler based [...]
February 24, 2011, 2:35 pmDan Weber says:
Karin did not expect that Pr Weiler would put on the internet all the letters exchanged
If she wrote private letters and he published them and that is the basis of her suit, I might see something there.
If she sued him and he responded by going public, my sympathy is nil.
February 24, 2011, 3:38 pmLitigator London says:
While making all due allowance for Maitre Calvo’s entirely natural desire to put the case for his wife who is also his law office partner, his co-author of various works and his fellow candidate for elected office, one might say that this statement shows only too well that lawyers, are not necessarily the best judges of litigation tactics in cases in which they are personally involved.
As lawyers themselves, Maitre Calvo and his wife ought to have been well aware that that the actions of Professor Weiler are almost bog-standard defence tactics in cases of this sort. Just days ago on this site we had an example of a post from the Senior Conspirator publishing a pre-action “take down” letter which had been received from some lawyer who ought to have known better. When the academic freedom to criticise the work of another is in issue, it is absolutely legitimate for the defendant to call for letters of support from the community likely to wish that freedom to continue unfettered by the threat of criminal proceedings.
Mrs Collo only had to look at the entry for Professor Weiler on Wikipedia:
Professor Weiler is Joseph Straus Professor of Law and European Union Jean Monnet Chair at New York University Law School. member of the Department of Law at the European University Institute, Florence, where in 1989 he was co-founder of its Academy of European Law…. He later served as Professor of Law at the University of Michigan Law School (1985–1992) and as Manley Hudson Professor and Jean Monnet Chair at Harvard Law School (1992–2001).He has held visiting Professorships at the University of Paris, the Institut d’Etudes Politiques de Paris (Science Po), the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, the Max Planck Institute for International Law at Heidelberg, All Souls College, Oxford, Chicago Law School, Stanford Law School, Yale Law School, the Ortega Y Gasset Institute, Madrid, the University of Toronto, the University of Frankfurt and the University of Ljubljana. Professor Weiler is the Chairman of the Hauser Global Law School Program and Director of the Jean Monnet Center for International and Regional Economic Law & Justice at NYU. He is, along with Professor Moshe Halbertal, the Chairman and Director of The Tikva Center for Law and Jewish Civilization at NYU. He is, too, Professor at the College of Europe in Bruges, Belgium and Natolin, Poland; Honorary Professor at University College, London; Honorary Professor at the Department of Political Science, University of Copenhagen and Co-Director of the Academy of International Trade Law in Macao, China. He is a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. He is a Reporter of the American Law Institute (International trade: WTO). He served as a Member of the Committee of Jurists of the Institutional Affairs Committee of the European Parliament co-drafting the European Parliament’s Declaration of Human Rights and Freedoms. He was a member of the Groupe des Sages advising the Commission of the European Union on the 1996/97 Amsterdam Treaty. He is a WTO Panel Member. He is a founding Editor of the European Journal of International Law, of the European Law Journal and of the World Trade Review. He is a Member of the Advisory Boards or Scientific Committees of the Journal of Common Market Studies, Cahiers de Droit Européeen, Common Market Law Review, European Foreign Affairs Review, the Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law, the Columbia Journal of European Law, the Harvard International Review, the Harvard Journal of International Law, the (Australian) Federal Law Review, the Journal of European Integration, the European Foreign Policy Bulletin online and ELSA-Selected Papers of European Law. He is a Member of the Board of Management of the European Research Paper Archive. He is also a Member of the Scientific Advisory Board of the Asia-Pacific Journal of EU Studies. He is a Council Member of the Centre for European Economic and Public Affairs, University College, Dublin, a Member of the Board of the Centre for the Law of the European Union at University College, London, Member of the International Advisory Board, Queen’s University, Belfast, U.K. and at the Ortega Y Gasset Institute, Madrid, Spain. He is Member of the Advisory Council of the Interdisciplinary University Center, Herzelia, Israel. He is Member of the Advisory Board of the Center for International, Comparative Law, The Dickinson School of Law, PennState and Member of the International Council of the Institute for Global Legal Studies, Washington University School of Law, St. Louis and a board member of the Scientific Advisory Board at the Max-Planck-Institute fuer auslaendisches oeffentliches Recht und Voelkerrecht in Heidelberg, Germany. He is a Member of the International Advisory Board of the Contemporary Europe Research Centre of the University of Melbourne, Australia and a Member of the International Board of the Concord Research Center at the College of Management, Israel. He is a Council Member of the Association for Hebraic Studies, AHS Institute, USA. He is a member of the Editorial Board of the Jewish Review of Books.
That should have been sufficient to give the lady reasonable certainty that her law suit would become something of a cause célèbre. The 21,700 or so hits for her name on Google are entirely predictable. If Madame did not anticipate the reaction, than I can only say that this gives some support to the proposition that her critical and analytical faculties are not particularly acute.
I suspect the prosecution (whether successful or not) is going to do no end of harm to her academic prospects.
Still, those who can do, those who can’t teach, and for those that can do neither there is always politics. After all, politics is a profession where it is almost always better to be notorious than unknown, so who knows, there may yet be a new role for Maitre Calvo as the consort of Madame le Ministre Calvo-Goller.
February 24, 2011, 7:34 pmperlhaqr says:
I’ve heard of Character Assassination before, indeed, that seems to be what Calvo-Gollar is objecting to. However, given the nature of the internet today, she seems to be more effectively committing Character Suicide by Google.
It’s sort of like Suicide by Cop, only you’re still around to bask in the rich contempt of your peers.
February 25, 2011, 8:47 pmdanny e bloome says:
The key to his tempest in a Gallic teapot might lie not so much in the brief “review” that appeared online but in the publishing of private letters among principles here that were meant as private emails?
Dr Michel CALVO (Karin’s husband) wrote above:
”Karin did ***not expect that Pr Weiler would put on the internet all the letters exchanged and that he would ask all for letter of indignation/support for the Court. Pr Weiler could easily imagine that this ***could lead to a ***witch hunt and insults.
He did it!
Note that Pr Weiler knew two successive deans of the Academic Center of Law and Business of Ramat Gan (who was created by Hebrew University professors). (Karin taught at the Hebrew University 15 years and there are academic relations). ***Let your imagination work..to understand what she felt when she saw the review and all the bad publicity made.
Pr Weiler had plenty of time (4 years) to analyse with his French Lawyer (Office of a former Mitterand’s Minister, Kiejman) the legal situation and try to contact Karin’s lawyer, Dr David Dassa Le Deist, to settle the matter and find an agreement on a comment to be placed next to Pr Weigend’s review.
February 26, 2011, 10:46 pmHe did ***not contact him.”
Dr Michel CALVO says:
I am Dr Karin Calvo-Goller husband.
Please see: http://www.calvolaw.org
For a full picture, from my point of view
Best regards
March 1, 2011, 12:53 pmDan e bloome says:
I read your comments supporting the Calvo-Goller team and questiong why the hate speech and antisemitic comments of so and so in some state were allowed at Amazon Books. A steadfast truth-seeker you are.
March 1, 2011, 8:56 pmIn fact (and legally), Amazon does not abide by its own rules, it hosts a denigration party about Dr Calvo-Goller’s book, and ends up serving as a tool for hate speach and allows book rating by people who openly say they never read the book. Never mind about lack of professionalism, but besides discrediting the professor who wrote the book, this begs the question (which I fail to understand), what is Amazon’s reason to do so? What interest does this serve?
Litigator London says:
The Chronicle of Further Education reported 4 hours ago that Professor Weiler has informed them that the judgment of the Court has been delivered and that Mrs Calvo-Goller has lost her case.
Report.
One hopes the Judgment will be put on-line so that we may see the reasons. No doubt Maitre Calvo will also be posting his promised commentary.
March 3, 2011, 6:24 pmdann e bloome says:
Oui oui, le ”verdict” just came in: from Paris: Will there
be an appeal? I have no idea. But this story has legs. Don’t close the book yet.
The Paris Tribunal apparently declared that it had no jurisdiction in the case because Dr Goller did not bring proof by a court-appointed clerk that the website of ”Global law books” was visible in quotew unquote ”French Territory” the day or before the day Dr Goller brought the case to the Dean of the Investigating judges in Paris. That’s part one. Part two: The Paris court on March 3 also declared that the ”words” used by Dr Joseph Weigend from Cologne Germany who reviewed the book in question did not constitute ”libel” and were within the limits of ”free critical book review speech”. They were ”measured”, the court rules in handing down its verdict and dismissing the case. Game over? Je ne sais pas. Maybe Adam Liptak will do an update with both sides interviewed this time instead of just a one-sided story, which was way beneath the standards of the Times, IMHO.
Dr Goller apparently has ten days to decide whether or not to appeal the court decision.
Oh, and one more thing: She must pay 8.000 euros (around US$10.000 ) to Dr Joseph Weiler at NYU.
Plus ca change, plus c’est la meme chose. Can i say that?
March 3, 2011, 10:44 pmLitigator London says:
So you saw it too. For others, the Judgment is on-line (in French) on the site of the of The Chronicle of Higher Education here.
The Judgment is in the usual form in civil law jurisdictions and begins with a recital of the procedureal steps and the findings of fact in sub paragraphs each beginning with “Attendu que…”.
1. The Court accepts Professor Weiler’s preliminary objection to the Court taking jurisdiction;
2. The Court then goes on to set out its findings to support the contention that the complaint was an abuse of the process of the Court. It sets out the admission by Ms Goller that although the review in issue was published on a US web site, in English and although she lives and works in Israel, she brought the proceedings in France based on her French nationality becuuse that was less costly for her.
3. The Court then finds that Ms Goller had engaged in “forum shopping” (in English in the Frenh text) to disadvantage the Defendant, place him in the most unfavourable position and also facing criminal proceedings and that this was a abuse of the process of the Court;
4. The Court finds that Ms Goller was mistaken as to the French law of defamation; that the review of the book did not damage her hoour or reputation, was expressed in moderate terms, was a scientific (ie “expert”) opinion which did not go beyond the proper limits of the criticism to which every author of a work of intellectual property must expect to be exposed.
5. The Court then finds that, since Ms Goller is a lawyer and has studield in France, her bad faith in bringing the action is established;
6. The Court then finds that the harm suffered by Professor Weiler will be sufficiently compensated by an award of €8,000. [US$ 11,000].
In the event therefore on the merits the Court declares that it is without jurisdiction in the matter and orders Ms Goller to pay Professor Weiler €8,000 compensation for the harm suffered in consquence of her abuse of the process.
I suspect this will not go down well with Ms Gollo – particularly the finding that she acted in bad faith. Still the outcome is pretty cheap to what it might have cost her had she brought the proceedings in the UK.
I can only repeat my earlier observation: I would have thought that any lawyer worthy of the title would know better than to become a plaintiff in a defamation case, since one of the first rules of defamation suits is that the complainant may very well find, that the reputation sought to be protected emerges greatly diminished.
I am not competent to say what, if any, effect this judgment will have on the good lady’s academic standing.
Appeal? I would have though that inadvisable – when in a hole, stop digging. But one awaits developments…
March 4, 2011, 5:27 amdannye e bloome says:
Here is on defense of Dr Calvo-Goller via Michael Popejoy comments at Chron High Ed in Dc site:
“Although I firmly believe that critical comments from our colleagues in the form of book reviews, journal and conference paper peer reviews and all other methods of reflective feedback such as letters to the editor are important to the free exchange of ideas, I do disagree with what often times can be mean spirited, uninformed, rude and offensive commentary offered within the safety of the anonymous review. Fortunately, only twice in my career have I received anonymous peer review that were rude, offensive, insulting, crass, and extremely unprofessional in every aspect. I am ashamed, not of the rejection, but of the unprofessionalism of the reviewer. I am not sure why, under the cloak of anonymity, that a peer professional feels compelled to lash out with the clear intention of hurting the writer without fear of discovery. Does this approach do anything to improve the scholarship of the discipline or is it just to make the reviewer feel somehow superior? Even a flawed academic contribution to the literature is the result of hard work and many hours on the part of the contributor, and to what ends does an insulting review accomplish? In the two events that have happened to me, upon reflection, the offensive reviewer was probably right, the work was flawed; however, the insulting approach in the review really does not contribute much to the improvement of the work under review. The reviewer was not intending to improve the work so much as to inflict pain upon the contributor. As a frequent reviewer myself, I have always endeavored to present my criticisms objectively, respecting the contributor(s) efforts, rather than trying to elevate myself by dragging someone else down. I suppose it is easy to hurt someone when no one has to know who you are. But, I would rather not stoop that low, and in my experience, luckily for our profession, it is rare. My recommendation for journal editors is to eliminate such rancorous reviews before they are forwarded to the contributor, then resend the work to another reviewer for a more courteous review (regardless of acceptance or rejection as the final decision) and remove the offending reviewer from the editorial board permanently. We don’t need these people.
This particular response may not fit the specific merits of the case presented here, but it does reflect on the general relationship of the reviewer and the contributor to the literature of our discipline. Should journal editors publish a clear set of guidelines for reviewers that include firm rules of decorum? I vote yes.”
– Michael W. Popejoy, M.B.A., Ph.D., M.P.H., M.S.
March 4, 2011, 7:53 amFellow, Royal Society for Public Health
Litigator London says:
There is now a website: http://www.calvolaw.org which puts the Calvo-Goller position on the case.
The introduction is written by Michel Calvo, who now practises as a lawyer in Israel, apparently in partnership with his wife. It is worth noting that Maitre Calvo practised at the Paris bar.
Maitre Calvo refers to the case as having proceeded before the Tribunal de Grand Instance (a civil court) but I think it was actually before the 17th Chamber of the Tribunal Correctionel (a criminal jurisdiction). See the Judgment – the case is entitled (in Translation)”Public Prosecutor -v- Weiler”.
Maitre Calvo begins by stating that the opinions he expressed are his and his alone.
He states: “The insults against Dr Calvo-Goller posted on the web by members of the academic community, not to mention the insulting e-mails to Dr Calvo-Goller’s place of work, bring to mind the darkest periods of humanity.”
Just a touch of hyperbole there, methinks.
He states: “In June 2007, Dr Calvo-Goller read the review and found the review libellous”
For the word “found” substitute “thought”. The Judgment of the Court Dr Calvo-Goller chose as the forum for her action has expressly found that the review was not libellous. Unless an appeal is lodged (within the next 10 daya, I think), that finding will be “res judicata” which may have consequences should Dr Calvo-Goller be contemplating further litigation in some other jurisdiction.
He states: “It could have taken weeks or more before Dr Calvo-Goller’s comment would be approved or rejected. Under French law, the time period to file a complaint is three months from the day of publication. Pr Weigend’s review was published on 3 April, 2007. She had no other choice left.”
The difficulty with this proposition is that the French Court has found that it had no jurisdiction and the proceedings should not have been brought in France.
In the section headed “Dr Calvo-Goller had a Reputation to Protect” Maitre Calvo asserts:-
“To maintain that a dispute involving academic freedom has no place in a court of law, implies that there are areas where defamation law is inapplicable.”
If the review had in fact been defamatory Dr Calvo-Goller certainly had legal remedies in an appropriate forum. However, the forum she selected by making a criminal complaint has, however, ruled that the review was in fact not defamatory as a matter of French law.
In effect the French Judges found that Dr Calvo-Goller made two errors of judgment, one procedural and one substantive. Did not Maitre Calvo as a former practitioner in the French Courts give her any guidance on this? Did not her French lawyer advise her?
In the section headed: “The Out of Court Trial against Dr Calvo-Goller”:-
Maitre Calvo complains: “Pr Weiler saw fit to publish on the EJIL web site the letters that Dr Calvo-Goller sent to him, without her authorisation…
The problem with that criticism is that Dr Calvo-Goller’s letters were making what may be described as an unwarranted demand: “take down a review I consider defamatory”. Perhaps in her ignorance of defamation practice, Dr Calvo-Goller, did not appreciate that it was likely that her correspondence would be made public.
Again, Maitre Calvo complains:-
“I assume Pr Weiler is capable of finding e-mail addresses of editors and professors in order to organize his defence, but he instead chose to ask for letters of indignation/support against Dr Calvo-Goller in a public manner, from the entire academic world. He submitted 45 Letters of Support from the Academic Community and 54 Letters from Editors of Academic Journals to the Court.”
Good tactics by the Defense.
There is a final matter worthy of comment: In the final section Maitre Calvo asserts:-
“Under French Law, “diffamation” is not a crime as reported, it is a “d?lit” (misdemeanor). This type of misdemeanor is irrelevant when requesting a visa just like a parking ticket.What Pr. Weiler risks is a fine.”
It seems to me that there there is a language issue here as well as a misleading assertion. French criminal procedure has three classifications of offences and three levels of court at first instance:-
“infraction” – Tribunal de Police
“delit” – Tribunal Correctionel
“crime” – Cour d’Assise”
The distinction between “delit” and “crime” is indeed akin to that which we formerly had in England between “misdemeanour” and “felony”. But in the English language both are crimes leading to a criminal conviction.
The criminal libel procedure before the Tribunal Correctionnel is not akin to a parking ticket. The Judgment of the Court in this case makes express reference to the opprobrium inherent in the choice of criminal proceedings.
So, while one can understand Maitre Calvo’s desire to defend the position of his lady wife, it seem to me that his special pleading is unhelpful.
Dr Calvo-Goller displayed bad judgment in concluding that the review was defamatory. The Court has found that it was not.
Perhaps Dr Calvo-Goller would have been wiser to take up the generous offer of replying to the review rather than rushing into Court.
One of the first things litigation lawyers learn is the need to advise clients of the potential consequences of the case not succeeding. This is particularly true in defamation cases where there is an inherent danger that the plaintiff comes out worse off after the judgment is given.
I trust that Dr Calvo-Goller’s legal advisers did give her that warning. If not, then she has cause for complaint. If they did, then she is the author of her own misfortune.
As the Greeks well knew, Hubris is inexorably followed by Nemesis.
March 5, 2011, 10:53 pmCockleCove says:
I’m puzzled by the characterization of Michael Popejoy’s comment on the Chronicle of Higher Ed’s web site as a “defense of Dr. Calvo-Goller”. His gripe is directed at anonymous peer reviews.
Thanks, Litigator London, for alerting us, on today’s (Sunday) Open Thread, to the court decision & for your links here, plus your summary in English.
March 6, 2011, 12:27 pmOPISO » Karin Calvo-Goller Redux says:
[...] posted on the lawsuit earlier. $11,000 won’t cover a lot of legal fees, but the judgment is a rebuke [...]
March 6, 2011, 11:04 pmdannye e bloome says:
Thre’s more coming out soon. Stay tuned. This story has legs, as they say in the newsroom. RE:
”Yes, I would like to speak to the Chronicle about the case.
I propose you ask me the questions by mail, I will answer promptly, if your questions reach me during the day. Should you have further questions, you can call me
My husband, Michel Calvo, posted a comment on the web http://www.calvolaw.org which contains more information.
The filing of a complaint against Pr Weiler is not about trying to have only positive book reviews, it is about responsible book reviewing and about factually true book reviews.
My mail box at the Academic Center of Law and Business, is flooded with an incredible amount of insulting mails and requests for information.
Until a judgment is rendered, it is considered not to be good faith practice to try and influence the outcome through the web or the press. As a French citizen, I am supposed to know this and to behave accordingly. Not so for Pr. Weiler who is not French.
Looking forward to hear from you,
Karin (Calvo-Goller)”
in response to:
”Dear Ms. Calvo-Goller,
`
Danny Bloom got in touch with me and passed on this email address for you. Let me know if you would like to speak with the Chronicle about the Weiler case. I’ve had no luck reaching you through your Academic Center of Law and Business email address.
Thanks and best,
Jennifer Howard”
Senior Reporter
March 7, 2011, 3:25 amThe Chronicle of Higher Education
1255 23rd St. NW
Washington, D.C. 20037
dannye bloome says:
Under the French law on defamation, the part of
March 10, 2011, 10:55 pmthe ruling of the
court on lack of
jurisdiction was astonishing; however under recent
precedents of the French Cour de Cassation
(Supreme Court), the ruling was not a total surprise. The
couert’s objection of lack of jurisdiction was
raised by Weiler’s lawyer just one day before the hearing and was
accepted by the court. But apparently Dr Karin Calvo-Goller has decided not to appeal.
While in theopinion of
a French Supreme Court expert, it could be proven
that the litigious review was accessible and was actually consulted in
France on and
before july 3, 2007. However, even if the jurisdiction issue could be
overcome, an appeal would only succeed most likely if the defamation was seen to be very
serious, such as X was
bribed, or Y participated in a crime. According to another expert, in view of the huge publicity of
this case, French courts don’t want to be seen as the censors of
academic freedom so my guess there will no appeal and end of story. Period. Full stop. But this story still has legs.
dannye bloome says:
see what i meant about legs?
Chron of Hi Ed now posts:
Karin N. Calvo-Goller last week lost her controversial libel lawsuit in France, a case that had stoked concerns about libel tourism and scholars’ freedom to publish criticism. She has not been talking to the news media, but she agreed this week to discuss the case with The Chronicle of Higher Education, story by Jennifer Howard.
Ms. Calvo-Goller, a senior lecturer at the Academic Center of Law & Business, in Israel, had filed a criminal-libel
This is an article for subscribers only. You may access this article by purchasing a:
March 11, 2011, 9:36 pmPrint Subscription
dannye says:
After Loss in Court, Scholar Defends Libel Lawsuit Over Negative
By Jennifer Howard. Karin N. Calvo …
chronicle.com/article/After-Loss-in-Court-Scholar/126720/
March 12, 2011, 1:06 amadiran nuts says:
March 12, 2011, 7:38 amellen markersonn says:
FYI: Dr Karin Calvo-Goller was born in Italy, the daughter of Austrian parents who came to Italy, and while she speaks several languges, German is her mother tongue. She lived, studied and worked in France for close to 20 years and her five children are French nationals as is her husband, Dr. Michel Calvo. Karin also became a French national, and is an Italian, French and Israeli national – in order of acquisition.
NOTE: There is one point in this case that was totally misunderstood by many of the international observers and that point needs to be underlined here: in France, no one goes to prison for libel. [All that a defendant in a lawsuit in France risks, such as the one that Calvo-Goller brought against Joseph Weiler, is a fine, and even then, even if the court decides in the plantiff's favor, against the defendant, even then, the defendant is not considered a criminal under French law since libel is a misdemeanor and not a crime under French law.]
March 13, 2011, 10:42 pmDannye Bloome says:
Dr Karin Calvo-Goller would like to add this brief comment to the already-published interview she granted to Jennifer Howard at the Chronicle
of High Education in Washington DC, since comments are no longer being posted there without a subscription and the interview itself is behind a paywall that non-subscribers cannot read or see comments posted after the article.
Dr Calvo-Goller notes:
“In recent months, regardin the lawsuit in Paris, which has now been dismissed and which I decided not to appeal, I was often asked to comment by reporters and scholars on my choice of a French court
rather than an Israeli court for lawsuit venue, and also to comment on Israeli libel law in relation to the internet.
Although I publish mostly in France, I would have preferred to file the claim in Israel. It would
have been less costly and less time-consuming since no travel would have been required as
far as I was concerned.
Libel law and internet issues are not my fields of expertise, and before consulting any lawyers
in the US or in France, I consulted an Israeli lawyer.
According to the Israeli lawyer I consulted in June 2007, my claim would not succeed in
an Israeli court since two Israel Supreme Court judgments did not consider the internet as
constituting a means of publishing what is deemed to be a libelous text or expression,
contrary to the printed media or public declarations.
I was recently informed that this is not so.
I am not in a position to know whether in June 2007, this was a clear-cut issue or one that was subject
to interpretation. I recently invited the lawyer I consulted in June 2007 to participate in an academic
discussion on this subject, but he said he was busy with other work now.
My French lawyer, who specializes in this field, as well as the French investigating Judge
March 20, 2011, 7:29 amand the Prosecutor who had to decide whether or not to transfer the case to the Tribunal
Correctionnel, considered that this was a case of defamation.”