7th Circuit Dismisses Defamation Case Against 'Freakonomics' Author

Law.com ^ | 2-12-09 | Zach Lowe

[stan_sipple]

The Am Law Daily was fascinated by the conclusion in "Freakonomics" that the huge drop in crime in the 1990s could be attributed to the legalization of abortion in Roe v. Wade. But there's a single paragraph in that discussion in which the book's co-author, Steven Levitt, an economist at the University of Chicago, discusses the possibility that laws allowing people to carry concealed weapons might be responsible, in part, for a drop in violent crime.

The best-known proponent of that argument is a conservative scholar named John R. Lott, now at the University of Maryland, who wrote the book "More Guns Less Crime." In "Freakonomics," Levitt (and co-author Stephen Dubner) mention the "troubling allegation that Lott actually invented some of the survey data that supported his more-guns/less-crime theory." Levitt then says he has no idea if those allegations are true, but concludes that, "When other scholars have tried to replicate [Lott's] results, they found that right-to-carry laws simply don't bring down crime."

Lott hired Seyfarth Shaw and sued Levitt and the book's publisher, HarperCollins, for defamation. Levitt and Harper hired a team from Hogan & Hartson and Jenner & Block to fight the case, and they won a dismissal at the district level. Lott appealed to the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which on Tuesday affirmed the lower court's dismissal of the case.

The lead attorney on Levitt's side, Slade Metcalf of Hogan, declined comment, saying HarperCollins prefers its outside counsel to not speak to the press. David Sanders, the lead Jenner attorney on the case, says his firm has a long relationship with HarperCollins but deferred further comment to Metcalf.

Lott's argument is interesting. He focused on the word "replicate," a word that, according to Lott, means something very specific in academic circles -- that someone uses the same data and methodology as another scholar. By suggesting other scholars had "replicated" his guns study and found different results, Lott alleged, Levitt was implying that Lott must have fudged the numbers somehow -- that he was dishonest.

The three-judge panel disagreed, saying "Freakonomics" was meant for a general audience that wouldn't have interpreted Levitt's writing that way. "After all," Judge Terence Evans wrote, "'Freakonomics' didn't become a bestseller just by targeting just academics."

Mark Johnson, the lead Seyfarth attorney, was not immediately available for comment. Lott did not immediately respond to e-mail messages seeking comment.

[fightinbluhen51]

Discourage, discredit, disbar, discriminate, disseminate, diligently destroy the truth.

[cynwoody]

This strikes me as like one of those restaurant owner suing reviewer cases.

Under proper tort reform, Lott would now be required to reimburse Levitt for expenses incurred in the case.

Allowing lawsuits over trivial academic squabbling such as this would increase the cost of airplane reading. It is in my selfish interest that that not happen.

[stan_sipple]

how about a fairness doctrine for liberal distortion, i agree this probably had no place in a libel suit

[ThomasHart]

In fact cynwoody, Lott did win a major concession from Levitt. See Levitt's admission letter that he had to provide earlier in the case.