Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Re: "Hockey stick" climate researcher Michael Man wins $1M defamation lawsuit against far right climate deniers
0 views
Skip to first unread message
Mike's Bike Shoppe
Feb 10, 2024, 2:33:47 AM2/10/24
to
On 09 Feb 2024, kensi <kkensingto...@gmail.invalid> posted some
news:uq6hun$34mc7$1...@paganini.bofh.team:
> https://www.desmog.com/2024/02/08/michael-mann-wins-defamation-trial-cl
> imate-deniers-rand-simberg-mark-steyn/
>
> Take that!
Mann is a piece of shit and can't tell the difference between a thermal
anomaly, a sunny breeze, or a Kamala Harris fart.
In a recent editorial, we posed the two key questions that would be
answered by the Washington, D.C., jury that had been given
responsibility for resolving Michael Mann’s interminable crusade against
American journalism. The first was whether Americans are “able to
disagree about hotly contested political topics without being harassed,
dragged into court on the most specious of pretexts, and subjected to
ruinous legal fees.” The second was whether the protection of American
law “attaches to those who ruffle feathers.” Yesterday, in the nation’s
capital, a panel of jurors answered both of them with a resounding “No.”
In addition to a nominal $1 compensatory award, the writer Mark Steyn
was ordered to pay Mann $1 million in punitive damages for having
“defamed” him in a critical blog post here at National Review. Mann’s
other target, Rand Simberg, was ordered to pay $1,000 in punitive
damages for a separate blog post published by the Competitive Enterprise
Institute (CEI). A few blocks away, at the National Archives Museum, the
First Amendment faded a little on its parchment.
>From its inception, back in 2012, Mann’s relentless litigation has been
marked out by an unlovely mixture of mendacity and egomania. Before he
embarked on his crusade, Mann wrote to an acquaintance that he detected
“a possibility that I can ruin National Review.” Evidently, he has not
relinquished that ambition. In 2021, both National Review and CEI were
removed from his suit on constitutional actual-malice grounds, but,
having prevailed against his other targets, he now intends to bring us
back into the fold. Asked yesterday about his plans for National Review
and CEI, Mann’s lawyer, John Williams, said simply: “They’re next.”
And, at this rate, who isn’t? Why, over the years, have so many American
news outlets filed amicus briefs on behalf of National Review and the
other defendants in Mann’s suit? Because they understood all too well
that, ultimately, this lawsuit is not about Mark Steyn or about
conservative magazines or about climate change, but about the integrity
of free speech in these United States. The Supreme Court has held in no
uncertain terms that “debate on public issues should be uninhibited,
robust, and wide-open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic,
and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks.” To this, Michael Mann has
said, “Pish!” It is true that Mann is acting in a particularly sulky,
vindictive, and illiberal way. But, in a country of 330 million, there
will be others who want to do the same. Yesterday, he showed those
people the way.
That way has no place in a free country. In theory, what Mann has
achieved should be impossible. Between the First Amendment, an array of
anti-SLAPP statutes, and a defamation standard that demands proof of
“actual malice,” the shields available for the defense of free
expression are many. Alas, they can also prove paper-thin. The stated
aim of American law in this area is to avoid “self-censorship.” But who
would not self-censor if this is to be the result of speaking out? Even
if Steyn and Simberg had won, the process would have represented
punishment enough. This case has been running for twelve years. It has
obliged its victims to shell out millions of dollars in legal fees and
thousands of hours in attention. It has caused stress, uncertainty, and
fear. These are not the preconditions of robust debate; they are the
causes of journalistic anemia.
Mann’s case should not only have been rejected by the jury; it should
never have gone to trial in the first instance. At a hundred different
junctures, it ought to have been dismissed with prejudice — both legally
and metaphorically — by judges who ought to have known better. Time and
time again, the nation’s courts had a chance to stand up for robust
debate, and time and time again they failed to take it. Their inadequacy
will be felt for years to come.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2024/02/michael-mann-verdict-is-an-assault
-on-the-first-amendment/
news:uq6hun$34mc7$1...@paganini.bofh.team:
> https://www.desmog.com/2024/02/08/michael-mann-wins-defamation-trial-cl
> imate-deniers-rand-simberg-mark-steyn/
>
> Take that!
Mann is a piece of shit and can't tell the difference between a thermal
anomaly, a sunny breeze, or a Kamala Harris fart.
In a recent editorial, we posed the two key questions that would be
answered by the Washington, D.C., jury that had been given
responsibility for resolving Michael Mann’s interminable crusade against
American journalism. The first was whether Americans are “able to
disagree about hotly contested political topics without being harassed,
dragged into court on the most specious of pretexts, and subjected to
ruinous legal fees.” The second was whether the protection of American
law “attaches to those who ruffle feathers.” Yesterday, in the nation’s
capital, a panel of jurors answered both of them with a resounding “No.”
In addition to a nominal $1 compensatory award, the writer Mark Steyn
was ordered to pay Mann $1 million in punitive damages for having
“defamed” him in a critical blog post here at National Review. Mann’s
other target, Rand Simberg, was ordered to pay $1,000 in punitive
damages for a separate blog post published by the Competitive Enterprise
Institute (CEI). A few blocks away, at the National Archives Museum, the
First Amendment faded a little on its parchment.
>From its inception, back in 2012, Mann’s relentless litigation has been
marked out by an unlovely mixture of mendacity and egomania. Before he
embarked on his crusade, Mann wrote to an acquaintance that he detected
“a possibility that I can ruin National Review.” Evidently, he has not
relinquished that ambition. In 2021, both National Review and CEI were
removed from his suit on constitutional actual-malice grounds, but,
having prevailed against his other targets, he now intends to bring us
back into the fold. Asked yesterday about his plans for National Review
and CEI, Mann’s lawyer, John Williams, said simply: “They’re next.”
And, at this rate, who isn’t? Why, over the years, have so many American
news outlets filed amicus briefs on behalf of National Review and the
other defendants in Mann’s suit? Because they understood all too well
that, ultimately, this lawsuit is not about Mark Steyn or about
conservative magazines or about climate change, but about the integrity
of free speech in these United States. The Supreme Court has held in no
uncertain terms that “debate on public issues should be uninhibited,
robust, and wide-open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic,
and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks.” To this, Michael Mann has
said, “Pish!” It is true that Mann is acting in a particularly sulky,
vindictive, and illiberal way. But, in a country of 330 million, there
will be others who want to do the same. Yesterday, he showed those
people the way.
That way has no place in a free country. In theory, what Mann has
achieved should be impossible. Between the First Amendment, an array of
anti-SLAPP statutes, and a defamation standard that demands proof of
“actual malice,” the shields available for the defense of free
expression are many. Alas, they can also prove paper-thin. The stated
aim of American law in this area is to avoid “self-censorship.” But who
would not self-censor if this is to be the result of speaking out? Even
if Steyn and Simberg had won, the process would have represented
punishment enough. This case has been running for twelve years. It has
obliged its victims to shell out millions of dollars in legal fees and
thousands of hours in attention. It has caused stress, uncertainty, and
fear. These are not the preconditions of robust debate; they are the
causes of journalistic anemia.
Mann’s case should not only have been rejected by the jury; it should
never have gone to trial in the first instance. At a hundred different
junctures, it ought to have been dismissed with prejudice — both legally
and metaphorically — by judges who ought to have known better. Time and
time again, the nation’s courts had a chance to stand up for robust
debate, and time and time again they failed to take it. Their inadequacy
will be felt for years to come.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2024/02/michael-mann-verdict-is-an-assault
-on-the-first-amendment/
0 new messages