News and views about philosophy, the academic profession, academic freedom, intellectual culture, and other topics. The world’s most popular philosophy blog, since 2003.
At the risk of self-advertising:… You claim “AI is unusual in degree, not in kind” and “It is not clear…
Apropos of Sagar’s wish to foist the A.I. industry by its own petard, this article appeared in print in yesterday’s…
I teach both large courses, like Jurisprudence and Critical Legal Thinking (a.k.a Legal Argumentation), and small seminar-based courses at Edinburgh…
Surely there is an answer to the problem of AI cheating which averts the existential threat. . It’s not great,…
I’d like to pose a question. Let’s be pessimistic for the moment, and assume AI *does* destroy the university, at…
Hear hear
I agree with all of this. The threat is really that stark. The only solution is indeed in-class essay exams,…
Who exactly has standing to complain of defamation here? What am I missing? (I haven't read the complaints, I should add, I am just going off the news story.)
Whether or not the defamation causes of action are mispleaded, the complaints also include counts of tortious interference with business relations. The complaints themselves are on Cooley’s website at http://www.cooley.edu/newsevents/_docs/2011_07_14_Summons_and_Complaint_startpage.pdf and http://www.cooley.edu/newsevents/_docs/2011_07_014_Summons_and_Complaint_startpage.pdf
A corporation can be a defamation plaintiff. See, e.g., Restatement (Second) of Torts section 561.
BL COMMENT: Thanks, I didn’t realize the Cooley Law School was incorporated.
The problem is going to be damages. Since this is a business, the tort is injurious falsehood (restatement’s name for it). Though an individual in this case could claim this is defamation per se, and thereby get presumed damages, a business needs to establish pecuniary damages. Even if enrollment is down at Cooley, it would be difficult to show a link between the activity of these bloggers and the reduced enrollment.
Cosign Beau. I don’t have data on injurious falsehood claiming but defamation is exceedingly tough for plaintiffs. The recurring paradigm is win at trial (if the judge lets the plaintiff over the “special damages” hurdle and doesn’t dismiss), lose on appeal. Cooley has next to zero chance of collecting a penny. It’s probably hoping for some kind of non-monetary victory. It won’t get that either.
Don’t they really want an injunction? Bloggers do not have money; the firm might – but it is really difficult to calculate damages in a case like this.
Leave a Reply to Chris Cancel reply