CA Science Center Pays $110,000 Over Canceled Film

[rug]

A documentary on intelligent design, a theory of creation that has been dismissed by some in the scientific community as comparable to claiming the South won the Civil War, can be shown at the California Science Center under terms of a settlement announced Monday.

However, the group that sued the center after a scheduled screening was canceled in 2009 now says it won't bother to show the film "Darwin's Dilemma: The Mystery of the Cambrian Fossil Record," at the center's IMAX theater or host a debate on evolution versus intelligent design afterward, as it had originally planned.

Instead, the American Freedom Alliance said it will move on after taking the $110,000 to be provided by the center foundation and its insurer under the settlement.

Under terms of the settlement, reached last month, neither side admitted wrongdoing and the alliance agreed to decline the center's invitation to screen the film.

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=14408363

[cleanhippie]

1. More dishonesty from AFA and Discovery Institute. This was a set-up all along. REAL story here.

Two years ago, a California science foundation gave permission to to the American Freedom Alliance ("freedom" is like "family" in these organizations; when you see it, you should be instantly suspicious) to show a movie in their IMAX theater. The film was titled "Darwin's Dilemma: The Mystery of the Cambrian Fossil Record", and it was an Intelligent Design propaganda piece. This happens fairly often; these sleazy organizations love to present the illusion of being scientific, so they like to rent out halls in museums and universities in order to put on their shows. The physics auditorium on the University of Minnesota Twin Cities campus is apparently a very popular venue for just that reason. But it does not imply any endorsement of the content of the movie by the venue owner — it's being rented as a public exhibition space, nothing more.

Unfortunately, in this case the AFA and their co-enablers, the Discovery Institute (Hiss! Spit! Booooo!) did their very best to misrepresent this showing as an endorsement by the California Science Center Foundation. The DI was involved; you know they wanted to stir up controversy, because that's what they do. And they got it: the foundation cancelled the showing over the false representations of endorsement. So the AFA sued them, again, exactly as the DI wanted.

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/08/sleaze_and_controversy_from_th.php

[rug]

2. Why did the Science Center settle?

[cleanhippie]

4. To save money on further litigation from the shake-down.

The lawsuit has now been settled. The AFA and DI have nothing to do but harrass with lawyers, while the foundation has the work of running a legitimate science institution to do, so they settled with an agreement (a rather contrived agreement) that they'd offer to host a movie, the AFA would agree to decline, and that the Foundation's insurance company would pay the defense's court cost to spare further litigation. And of course neither side would admit fault.

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/08/sleaze_and_controversy_from_th.php

[cleanhippie]

3. "The cancellation was never about the content of the program...It was the false/misleading press.."

"The cancellation was never about the content of the program, as indicated by the fact that the foundation was willing to have the event in the first place. It was about the false and misleading press releases that the Discovery Institute and AFA issued," the science center said in a statement Monday.



It was a shake-down.

[cleanhippie]

5. California Science Center Foundation's Statement Regarding Resolution of Legal Dispute with AFA

The California Science Center Foundation has settled a long-running legal dispute with the American Freedom Alliance ("AFA"). The settlement agreement explicitly states that no party admits fault or liability, and the settlement is a means to avoid the costs of further proceedings. As part of the settlement, the Foundation and AFA agreed to a joint statement that the Foundation would invite the AFA back to hold its private event, and the AFA would decline that invitation. The Foundation is satisfied with the terms of the settlement, which includes a cost of defense payment from the Foundation's insurer, to avoid the expense of further litigation.

The dispute arose out of unapproved press releases that had been issued relating to a private event that the AFA had intended to hold at the California Science Center's IMAX Theater. The press releases, for which AFA was responsible, falsely implied that the Foundation or the Science Center were sponsors of the AFA's event. They were not, and as a result of these false and misleading press releases, the Foundation cancelled the AFA's event.

The AFA then sued the Foundation and the Science Center for breach of contract and violation of the First Amendment, claiming that the Foundation's cancellation was based upon the purported content of the AFA's program. This was not the case, and the evidence demonstrated that the Foundation was right. Indeed, the fact that the Foundation booked the AFA's event in the first place affirmatively demonstrated the lack of merit to AFA's argument.

Through discovery, the Foundation also discovered other evidence that undermined AFA's claims. For instance, although the AFA asserted that the offending press releases were issued by an entirely independent third party (the Discovery Institute), it was uncovered that the AFA and the Discovery Institute actually had been secretly coordinating the publicity efforts and were intentionally trying to make the publicity that led to the cancellation as provocative and controversial as possible. One email among Discovery Institute individuals talked about "letting the jinnie out of the bottle" when "all hell will break lose." The Foundation was certainly entitled to cancel the AFA's private event.

The Foundation also brought cross-claims of its own against AFA, asserting breach of contract and fraud, and claiming that the AFA entered into their agreement with the Foundation without any intent on ever complying with the agreement and seeking Foundation approval prior to issuing any press releases (which was a term of the contract). Quite the contrary, the Foundation alleged, the AFA was actually coordinating with the Discovery Institute to issue offending press materials the whole time.

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/california-science-center-foundations-statement-regarding-resolution-of-legal-dispute-with-afa-128618283.html

[humblebum]

6. By the same token, it is notable that atheism must rely on censorship

to protect its point of view. Censorship and ridicule are two of its common reactions to being challenged. I'm just sayin'

[cleanhippie]

8. Yet none of that is true here. Perhaps if you did more thinking and less "just saying"...

"The press releases, for which AFA was responsible, falsely implied that the Foundation or the Science Center were sponsors of the AFA's event. They were not, and as a result of these false and misleading press releases, the Foundation cancelled the AFA's event."

"the fact that the Foundation booked the AFA's event in the first place affirmatively demonstrated the lack of merit to AFA's argument."

"although the AFA asserted that the offending press releases were issued by an entirely independent third party (the Discovery Institute), it was uncovered that the AFA and the Discovery Institute actually had been secretly coordinating the publicity efforts and were intentionally trying to make the publicity that led to the cancellation as provocative and controversial as possible. "


http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/california-science-center-foundations-statement-regarding-resolution-of-legal-dispute-with-afa-128618283.html



If there were any censorship or ridicule here, you would have a point, but as usual, its the same ignorant nonsense, over and over and over.

[humblebum]

9. Yeah. Uh Huh. nt

[cleanhippie]

11. Wow, is the the best defense for your ignorance that you have?

On the upside,you at least had the smarts to avoid this one.


:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[kestrel91316]

12. Your support for creationism and hatred of science has been duly noted.

[humblebum]

17. As is your support for censorship. nt

[cleanhippie]

23. What censorship? Why do make baseless assertions when there are NO FACTS to back them up?

What censorship took place here?


Or is this more of your "where you see contradiction, I see confirmation" nonsense?

[Iggo]

15. These two things: Censorship and Ridicule....and The Element of Surprise!

These THREE things...!!!

[rrneck]

16. Example? nt

[humblebum]

18. Um? Well? Maybe some of those who gripe about showing the film? nt

[rrneck]

19. Griping is not censoring. Try again. nt

[humblebum]

20. Showing support for censorship is censorship in my book. nt

[rrneck]

21. Produce an example of censorship. nt

[cleanhippie]

27. What censorship, humblebum? Why are you making things up, humblebum?

[Iggo]

42. .

:hi:

[cleanhippie]

24. Why do you make FALSE STATEMENTS? No one complained AT ALL about showing the film.

NO ONE COMPLAINED. YOU ARE MAKING IT UP!

[Sapphocrat]

45. Then you support the censoring of atheists.

All I've ever seen you do is "gripe" about atheists. (If you've ever posted anything, anything at all, that at its heart did not consist of "griping" about atheists, I have yet to see it.)

By your definition, "griping" is "censorship"; thus, solely on your terms and your terms alone, you support the wholesale silencing of atheists.

It is notable that you must rely on censorship to protect your anti-atheism point of view.

I'm just sayin'.

[edhopper]

22. Wow.

Not only are you a firm Christian, you are one of those "fringe" Christians we hear about who believe in Creationism.

[humblebum]

25. Do I believe that there was a Creator? You bet. Do I believe that the

earth and all else was created 6-10 thousand years ago, NO, and scripture doesn't even say that. I think that you are one of those fundy, fringe atheists too, but I still like ya.

[edhopper]

38. You seem to endorse the idea

that a Public Science institution should present a program on Creationism. One of the most anti-scientific scams out there.
I would like to know if you support the teaching of Creationism and the attempt to delegitimize Evolution?

[humblebum]

39. No. I do not support the teaching of creationism in a science class.

I believe in evolution, and that it in no way conflicts with a creation POV.


There is nothing specifically in the Bible that says the earth is only 6000-10000 years old. That is purely a human interpretation.

[edhopper]

40. Well,

that is good to know.

[laconicsax]

41. *psst*

The Bible has a chronology in its text. Modifying that chronology to fit reality requires interpretation.

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[humblebum]

28. Um?

"sued the center after a scheduled screening was canceled in 2009" - I seriously doubt whether they cancelled their own film, then decided to sue.

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[humblebum]

30. Yes, and that is why they decided to settle out of court.

I think the press release you just cited was purposely misleading. Yes, I saw it before. 2+2 Bubba.

[cleanhippie]

31. Wow, I have never seen you display such cognitive dissonance before.

[humblebum]

32. Yes you have. I think you accused me that not too long ago. nt

[cleanhippie]

33. This one takes the cake. The level of disconnect one needs to fabricate nonsense like this...

is astounding, and sad.


No one censored the film, and no one complained about the film. No one. Not a single person. Not even a little. Didn't even hint at it.


None of what you say ever happened, in any way, shape, or form.

[humblebum]

34. Yes, that's why the center paid out so much money to keep it out of court. nt

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[humblebum]

36. Excuse me? It was a case of he said/they said.

You said, "No one censored the film, and no one complained about the film. No one. Not a single person. Not even a little. Didn't even hint at it. None of what you say ever happened, in any way, shape, or form." And yet, you have no evidence to back up your statement.

The AFA lawyer said,"...once word of the film's screening got out to the scientific community, there was pressure on the center to cancel the event. The breach of contract issue, he said, was just an excuse."

Who paid bucks to keep it out of court?

[cleanhippie]

37. I guess its the same as you read your bible, you make things mean whatever you want them to.

and that is your privilege.


Just try not to let the walls cave in on you while your down there, ok?

[cleanhippie]

7. Great post, rug. Thanks for helping to expose the thieves and liars at AFA and DI.

[Kerrytravelers]

44. You mean agenda-driven christian organizations might be dishonst? *gasp*

Who woulda thunk it? :shrug:

[trotsky]

10. Better headline: "Dishonest Christian groups extort $110,000 from CA Science Center"

They can't win with facts, so they run to the courts after making false claims (namely, that the CSC was sponsoring the film).

[Kerrytravelers]

43. If only I could Recommend a post.

And yet, their frothing followers will commend their dishonesty- all in the name of their christ. What excellent christians they are. So unlike their christ. Ghandi was correct on so many levels.

[struggle4progress]

13. " ... in an unusual provision, the settlement called for Science Center officials to invite

the Freedom Assn. to show the film and for the association to immediately turn them down, a statement from the center said ... "
California Science Center settles anti-Darwin film lawsuit
August 29, 2011 | 3:12 pm
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2011/08/california-science-center-settles-anti-darwin-film-lawsuit.html

[struggle4progress]

14. Here's a press release from the Science Center, published in the Sacramento Bee

State-Run California Science Center Dismissed From American Freedom Alliance Lawsuit
By California Science Center
Published: Monday, Aug. 29, 2011 - 6:08 pm

LOS ANGELES, Aug. 29, 2011 -- /PRNewswire/ -- On August 24, 2011, Plaintiff American Freedom Alliance (AFA) dismissed, with prejudice, the state run California Science Center (Center) from a pending breach of contract and civil rights lawsuit concerning a private event AFA booked with the private non-profit California Science Center Foundation (Foundation). The parties reached a settlement just prior to a scheduled court hearing on the Center's dispositive motion for summary judgment which, if granted, would have confirmed that the state run Center had no liability in this case.

Key terms of the settlement include the fact that the state run Center would pay no money to AFA, and all parties would bear their own attorneys' fees and costs incurred in this litigation. The Center is pleased to put what it views as a meritless lawsuit behind it, and to continue working to advance its mission of stimulating curiosity and inspiring science learning.

Contact: Cheryl Tateishi | [e-mail][phone]

http://www.sacbee.com/2011/08/29/3870554/state-run-california-science-center.html

It's a bit hard to figure out the details from the reports. A settlement, of course, does not by itself show much: parties often settle simply to avoid the costs and uncertainties of litigation. It's not uncommon for settlements to be governed by various non-discussion conditions, so perhaps we cannot expect a clear public explanation of the settlement terms -- but here we have curiously conflicting reports about the settlement: some say CSC will pay AFA $110K while CSC says it will pay AFA nothing. The key may be: "the American Freedom Alliance said it will move on after taking the $110,000 to be provided by the center foundation and its insurer," which might actually mean that the insurer, to avoid foreseeable costs and potential liabilities, pushed the settlement and agreed to underwrite the payout

<On edit:> A more complete press release has already been posted here:
... the settlement also includes a small payment by the Foundation, to again avoid further proceedings .... although the Discovery Institute's August 29, 2011 press release states that the "state-run Science Center" paid a settlement amount, the reality is that the Science Center did not pay a dime ...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=214x299627