Source: Wall Street Journal
written by two lawyers - Messrs. Carvin and Dick are Washington lawyers. They represent National Review in Mr. Mann’s lawsuit.
This about the lawsuit Michael Mann (mr. global warming hockey stick nonsense originator) filed against Mark Steyn - radio talk show host, and writer in National Review. The two lawyers represent National Review - which has NOT stood behind Mark Steyn - and are separate from Mark's defense team.
That said - the article in the Wall Street Journal by the two Nat.Rev. lawyers is right on target about the First Amendment free press rights, and free speech rights. It is under GRAVE attack by the Federal Government.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-libel-suit-threatens-catastrophe-for-the-climate-of-public-debate-1486336417
A Libel Suit Threatens Catastrophe for the Climate of Public Debate
...
...
Not content to answer his critics in the public square, Mr. Mann has sued them. One of his targets is the political magazine National Review, which published a 270-word blog post criticizing Mr. Mann as “the man behind the fraudulent . . . ‘hockey-stick’ graph.” The post (mtnote: Mark Steyn - notice the lawyers NEVER mention his name in this piece) quoted a critic who wrote that Mr. Mann “could be said to be the Jerry Sandusky of climate science, except that instead of molesting children, he has molested and tortured data.”
National Review moved to dismiss the suit, citing a phalanx of Supreme Court precedent. The Constitution obviously does not allow crippling damages to be imposed for voicing one’s opinion, however vehemently or caustically. Punishing such criticism because a jury disagrees with it does not aid the search for truth, but impedes it by stifling conflicting views.
...
In this case the trial court refused to dismiss Mr. Mann’s libel suit. Judge Natalia Combs Greene ruled that the defamation claims were “likely” to succeed because “to call his work a sham or to question his intellect and reasoning is tantamount to an accusation of fraud,” when in fact Mr. Mann “has been investigated by several bodies (including the EPA)” which determined that his research was “sound and not based on misleading information.” For procedural reasons, the case was reassigned to Judge Frederick Weisberg, who largely adopted Judge Green’s reasoning.
Appellate courts, which exist to reverse such legal error, in this case compounded it. National Review was supported in friend-of-the-court briefs by such unlikely allies as the American Civil Liberties Union, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the Washington Post and the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. Yet a panel of the D.C. Court of Appeals—Judges Vanessa Ruiz,Corinne Beckwith and Catharine Easterly—held in December that Mr. Mann’s suit should proceed to a jury. The court again relied on various “official” investigations that had cleared Mr. Mann of misconduct, including an inquiry by the federal government. Speech that disagrees with the government is at the core of the First Amendment’s protection—though not in this court’s topsy-turvy world.
...
The logic of Mr. Mann’s position threatens to convert political and scientific debate into a litigation free-for-all, with all sides seeking to sue one another into submission instead of resolving differences through the free exchange of ideas. For those who care about the spirit of open inquiry at the heart of the scientific enterprise, it is scarcely possible to imagine a greater legal disaster than the prospect of Mr. Mann’s succeeding on his claims.
Other references:
http://www.steynonline.com/6910/mann-vs-steyn-the-state-of-play
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2014/02/12/mann_vs_steyn_the_trial_of_the_century__121528.html
Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good ...
| 
