Science blogger sued for publishing an unfavourable book reviewMikey no comments
It happens often, somebody blogs a negative review about book/movie/album X, and the publishers of X go after the blogger as if it were somehow going to reverse any damage - not that any damage had been done. And in the process the publishers usually always acquire a soiled reputation and end up having to deploy PR damage control, wishing they had never bothered in the first place.
In this case though, PZ Myers made a small 'mistake' by claiming the books '' and '' contain 'crackpottery'. From Meyer's review (which he has humorously assigned the categories 'books' and 'kooks):
"I have to add another compliment for the book, though. In addition to the lovely artwork, it's an extremely high quality print; well bound, on heavy stock, and looking to last a thousand years. It seems no expense was spared getting it published, which is in contrast to the content, and is unusual for such flagrant crackpottery. It may well be popular among creationists, who can always be trusted to favor glossy superficialities over substance."
This is the real reason for the lawsuit, as the term 'crackpot' is typically associated with low credibility and or lunacy. But even so, it's just one mans opinion, and I am sure there are other bloggers who will review the book(s) and find them equally as bad (or worse) as there are bloggers who will review favourably.
Fortunately for Myers, he is a wealthy business man with the resources to easily summon an army of lawyers if needed, assuming it even gets passed summary judgement.