With this word, discretion is the better part of, well, you know what.

–Jack Payne
http://www.sixhrs.com

Good luck, and keep blogging.

I’m no solicitor but I think you should treat this the exact same as if you were publishing a newspaper. If you think that the original post was mistaken, just publish a correction, that is all they appear to be asking for.

What you should do - for you your own sake - is publish the retraction - DAILY with a little note about how you were forced to do so by a rich, successful author. You will comply with his lawyer’s wishes, but also do yourself a big favor. Produce and release a press release indicating that this man has threatened you - the papers here and some in the UK and maybe even the US would probably lap it up. He may make you a star!

I’ve had serious threats of libel thrown at me over the years (with nuzhound.com) and it’s nerve-wracking. This doesn’t look like a battle worth fighting to me, but it is an opportunity for some publicity.

Ask them for the details of his undergraduate and postgraduate record, just the general details, and the subject of his doctoral thesis, his supervisor etc, and make this information the body of the correction.

If his PhD is genuine, and therefore your posting was incorrect, then his lawyers should have no problem supplying this information for the correction.

If the lawyers balk at this reasonable demand then they maybe moving into SLAPP terrority which will give a big legal club to strike back with.

Having read through your post, and the lawyer’s letter, I think the issue here is not so much the repetition of information on Deborah’s weblog, which is fact, but the use of the word “fraud”.

What the lawyers say is technically correct. He did get the degree from what was a recognised university. He isn’t making up the degree, although one can draw plenty of implications about the rigours of getting such a degree and that way in which the state of CA viewed the institution. Notably, they do not dispute the later closure of the university etc.

But Grey’s listing the degree as a degree he has earned isn’t fraudulent (though saying he had one when he didn’t, would be). Using that word has very specific implications — an intention to deceive by stating as truth that which is not — and would almost surely be construed as libellous in the context in which it is used. This would be the likely interpretation of California libel law (which I had to study in high school/university for publications I worked for in Calif), and under Irish law it would be the same.

The wise thing to do IMHO is print a retraction. Newspapers do this all the time. You can within the context of the clarification state that he has a degree etc etc and go ahead and add the other context for the nature of the institution as described by Deborah as that is further factual information. This is just not worth contesting as it would be seen by the courts here or there as pretty cut and dried. It is just unfortunate that this single entry came to their attention.

As a blog publisher, every blogger becomes liable under international libel laws for statements made on a blog, because it is public publication, so to speak, designed to be read by an audience at large. Pursuing a blogger so far seems pretty rare. Unfortunately for personal publishing, bloggers carry the legal responsibilities of large publishers but rarely have the same legal resources. Before notifying press etc about this I would very much advise consulting with a lawyer as to whether publishing a retraction would curtail their ability to go ahead and sue for libel anyway. If you could be pursued, there’s no point in stinging them into actually suing as they would almost certainly win and the California and Irish courts are prone to awarding very large damages plus costs.