Skip to main content

Oktar's lawyer gets in touch...

Dear Sir,


We have realized that various sections on the link http://stephenlaw.blogspot.com/2008/10/invitation-to-meet-mr-oktar-yahya.html of your blog contain groundless and wrong statements directed at my client, Mr. Adnan Oktar.
Please note that the article of the Turkish Daily News entitled "The Force Behind the Adnan Hoca Operation: Agar's Revenge" , which you cited on your blog, was removed from the newspaper's site upon our request to the site administration and application to the court. So we kindly urge you to remove this article as well, as the orginal links containing this article, https://turkishdailynews.com.tr/archives.php?id=15021 and https://turkishdailynews.com.tr/searchadv.php?o=0&q=newsstands
As for the other citations on your blog, for example the one from the link http://whoisharunyahya.wordpress.com/paranoid-cult-leader-harun-yahya/, we already applied to the court for the closure of this link. As you may already know, the access to www.wordpress.com, who ignored our warnings numerous times in the past regarding the removal of some blogs with similar content, has been suspended by a court ruling and the whole site has been blocked.
Thttp://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gifhe other citation from the site www.yahyaharun.com has to be removed as well since the original link has already been removed and the site closed with a court order.

Waiting to hear from you soon

Best Regards
Attorney Ceyhun Gokdogan

STEPHEN'S RESPONSE:

Thanks - is this merely a request, or is there some sort of threat of legal action if I don't do what you want?

best wishes
Stephen

POSTSCRIPT

The offending blog is here: An invitation to meet Mr Adnan Oktar (aka Harun Yahya, aka Adnan Hoca) - "future ruler of the entire world"?

You can read about Oktar's success in blocking all wordpress blogs here:
Shooting the messenger
A Turkish court has ordered the blocking of blog platform Wordpress. Is this the first sign of Islamist censorship in the secular state?
.
Labels:

Comments

Larry Hamelin said…
Someone has to clean the toilets: If the Turkish government wants to prevent its citizens from having a factual educations, it might as well be them. <sarcastic cynicism>
December 7, 2008 at 4:40 PM
jeremy said…
Talk about insecure...
December 7, 2008 at 8:27 PM
Unknown said…
I just noticed that Bianet from Turkey has published a summary of the country's website-banning activities for the third quarter of 2008. Oktar (Yahya) is present in a number of them.

I'm the "Nathan" you mentioned in an earlier post. I'll be in touch when my article about meeting with Yahya comes out, which should be soon.
December 8, 2008 at 1:58 AM
Anonymous said…
hmmm,
I suspect that more than rich wahabbis have discovered the usefullness of British libel law.
(Didn't a rich Middle-Easter manage to stop a book published elsewhere, in a British court - last year?)

So besides the scientologists
(who obviously hold litigation as a sacrament), I suspect that this Turkish cultist would like to give it a try, as well.

Cassanders
In Cod we trust
December 8, 2008 at 8:46 AM
Stephen Law said…
Thanks Nathan - look forward to seeing the piece.
December 8, 2008 at 9:49 AM
Stephen Law said…
I think I probably have two options - do nothing and, like Dawkins, become "banned in Turkey". Or, remove the quotes they mention and replace with "Removed under threat of legal action by the lawyers of Adnan Oktar" and then add links to the info about what he has already got banned. I think option 2 is probably more damaging to Oktar than the original quotes, so it's probably what I will do.
December 8, 2008 at 9:56 AM
jeremy said…
My opinion, for what it's worth: If you do anything at all that is construed as "damaging" to Oktar (like option No.2), you'll end up getting banned anyway. I would rather you just stuck by your guns from the beginning. "Removed under threat of legal action by the lawyers of Adnan Oktar" looks like he intimidated you into doing so, no matter what the reality of the situation. And besides, blogs are international. Why should the rest of the world not be able to read something just because Mr Oktar finds it offensive?
December 8, 2008 at 3:07 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Evil God Challenge and the "classical" theist's response

On another blog, FideCogitActio, some theists of a "classical" stripe (that's to say, like Brian Davies, Edward Feser) are criticisng the Evil God Challenge (or I suppose, trying to show how it can be met, or sidestepped). The main post includes this: In book I, chapter 39 , Aquinas argues that “there cannot be evil in God” (in Deo non potest esse malum). Atheists like Law must face the fact that, if the words are to retain any sense, “God” simply cannot be “evil”. As my comments in the thread at Feser’s blog aimed to show, despite how much he mocks “the privation theory of evil,” Law himself cannot escape its logic: his entire argument requires that the world ought to appear less evil if it is to be taken as evidence of a good God. Even though he spurns the idea that evil is a privation of good, his account of an evil world is parasitic on a good ideal; this is no surprise, though, since all evil is parasitic on good ( SCG I, 11 ). Based on the conclusions of se...
446 comments
Read more

EVIDENCE, MIRACLES AND THE EXISTENCE OF JESUS

(Published in Faith and Philosophy 2011. Volume 28, Issue 2, April 2011. Stephen Law. Pages 129-151) EVIDENCE, MIRACLES AND THE EXISTENCE OF JESUS Stephen Law Abstract The vast majority of Biblical historians believe there is evidence sufficient to place Jesus’ existence beyond reasonable doubt. Many believe the New Testament documents alone suffice firmly to establish Jesus as an actual, historical figure. I question these views. In particular, I argue (i) that the three most popular criteria by which various non-miraculous New Testament claims made about Jesus are supposedly corroborated are not sufficient, either singly or jointly, to place his existence beyond reasonable doubt, and (ii) that a prima facie plausible principle concerning how evidence should be assessed – a principle I call the contamination principle – entails that, given the large proportion of uncorroborated miracle claims made about Jesus in the New Testament documents, we should, in the absence of indepen...
159 comments
Read more

Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism refuted

Here's my central criticism of Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism (EAAN). It's novel and was published in Analysis last year. Here's the gist. Plantinga argues that if naturalism and evolution are true, then semantic epiphenomenalism is very probably true - that's to say, the content of our beliefs does not causally impinge on our behaviour. And if semantic properties such as having such-and-such content or being true cannot causally impinge on behaviour, then they cannot be selected for by unguided evolution. Plantinga's argument requires, crucially, that there be no conceptual links between belief content and behaviour of a sort that it's actually very plausible to suppose exist (note that to suppose there are such conceptual links is not necessarily to suppose that content can be exhaustively captured in terms of behaviour or functional role, etc. in the way logical behaviourists or functionalists suppose). It turns o...
151 comments
Read more