This is a discussion of the law of defamation as it applies to Mark Steyn. It is by “Ken” at the Popehat website. This seems to be the bottom line:
To have any chance of prevailing, Mann will have to establish that statements accusing him of scientific dishonesty must, even in the context of political opinion blogs, properly be interpreted as specific statements of fact, not statements of opinion. That’s a tough burden. Courts focus on the context in evaluating whether statements should be interpreted as fact or opinion, and increasingly interpret internet rhetoric as opinion rather than fact.
But Ken’s entire discussion is incredible, reinforcing my long held view that one should never get involved with the legal system if it can be at all prevented. Mann is cruisin’ for a bruisin’ which I heartily encourage him to do but when sanity has finally prevailed I suspect he will go nowhere near proceeding with the case. A shame – truth will out, of course – but when he withdraws that will be evidence enough of the rights and wrongs, but if he continues there will be even more evidence and it will be bountiful and luxuriant. May hubris be his guiding light.
And it might be mentioned, as many others have before, that not one second of the six hours of the Presidential and VP debates was devoted to global warming. It is an issue now old, gone and dead, with only we fools in Australia left to carry the financial burden for repairing the planet.
I firmly believe it will be.
Mann and the other usual suspects have inhabited a form of insular bubble where they were feted by the media, and, held a delusion that he/they could do no wrong and as a result reinforced and validated each others views in a kind of ‘scientific circle jerk’.
I doubt he has the insight to stop this action and will subject himself to ridicule.
The defamation issue is not the main game. The true fight will be over the Mann UVa emails that have cost UVa millions to keep hidden. When these are requested by the defense, assuming they contain what people think they contain, the defamation case will suddenly become small bickies indeed.
mann is a public figure. he must show actual malice as well as untruth.
the actual malice standard is not measured by what a reasonable person would have published or investigated prior to publication.
the plaintiff must produce clear and convincing evidence that the defendant actually knew the information was false or entertained serious doubts as to the truth of his publication. a court will look for evidence of the defendant’s state of mind at time of publication and will examine the steps he took in researching, editing, and fact checking his work.
It is not sufficient for a plaintiff to merely show that the defendant didn’t like him, failed to contact him for comment, knew he had denied the information, relied on a single biased source, or failed to correct the statement after publication.
in only a handful of cases over the last decades have plaintiffs been successful in establishing actual malice to prove defamation.
HT: http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-guide/proving-fault-actual-malice-and-negligence
For once I agree with you, Steve. It is a totally settled issue. The denialists have long been roundly defeated, the matter is settled, why waste time debating it further. Do you recall how many minutes were spent in the debates on whether the earth is flat?
Denialists are so busy congratulating each other on how clever they are versus scientists, they’ve missed observing what a tiny, miniscule a number they’ve been reduced to.
Mann’s been dumb enough to trust an American lawyer telling him:
‘Trust me, you’ve got a great case ! The Bill-o-meter is now running’
He’s toast.
SO have we worked out if Hammy is really Sinclair drumming up comments with parody?
While hammygar tries vainly to do his troll-shtick to get a laugh or a response, the facts are that the US never signed Kyoto, will never sign a successor, ad all attempts at carbon taxing in the USA are DOA. The presidential candidates are not wasting one second of airtime on it, and the issue will quietly slip beneath the waves as the professionally outraged find a new cross to bear. If Romney wins, it is definitely the end of the line for the professional GW activists. If Obama wins, their lot will be scarcely better. There will be no promises of planet healing in any victory speech by either side, of that I am certain.
Still it disgusts me. Trillions of dollars and man hours wasted, people untold suffering around the world from the climate change activism yoke, and the crowd just moves on to whatever else they think will usher in more central planning. Objectively the environment has come out worse from the entire multi decade mess.
Poor Hammy, you are fretting that your hero has feet of clay and brains of tofu.
Sorry, mate, if climate “scientists” like Dr Mann were actual scientists they would not be trying to play us scientists for fools. Unfortunately for them we can read data, which is why guys like Hal Lewis and Freeman Dyson called the Team on their shonk “Science”.
how times change! not even a question at the townhall:
• The 2008 Republican presidential nominee supported cap-and-trade.
• By January 2010, the Pew Research Center asked Americans to rank the importance of twenty-one issues. Climate change came in last.
• After winning the fight over health care, another issue for which polling showed lukewarm support on climate change, Obama moved to safer issues.
Obama could have fought harder to get the Bill passed by the House though the Senate but did not. 5 republican senators would have voted for cap and trade in April 2010: Lindsey Graham, Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe, Scott Brown and George LeMieux.
Blame Obama. He is supposed to make change happen. He lacked the political skills to build the coalitions even in his own party to deliver.
Hi Gab
I know Hammy ( and a few others from time to time ) read suspiciously like poor parody, but every so often something comes along that makes you wonder just how nutso things are getting.
Some blog ( maybe Instapundit ) linked to this blog yesterday where the writer attended the British ‘Battle of Ideas’ – which given the soft police-nanny state Britain has become, potentially would be a complete monotone circle jerk like the Australian versions Gerard Henderson regularly alludes to.
I just highlight the point in the attached that rocked me:
Did this statement come from a mainstream politician, an historian or a think tank fellow ?
No
Frank Furedi, academic and one time leader of the Revolutionary Communist Party was apparently the only clear voice of liberty invited to speak – and the organisers probably got ambushed by his take, given his earlier history.
Basis the publicly expressed sentiments from the political, think-tank and academic types at this conference, Hammy would apparently be a mainstream voice in the lunch room of any university campus or public service office in Australia.
I still think Mann will be cleaned out by his lawyer fighting the wrong fight.
Incredible, Myrddin. I am now officially depressed. I think it was last week when a few listeners phoned in to speak with Bolt on radio. These were uni students of the “wrong” political persuasion, detailing how they were treated at uni by the left rabble and by their teachers. Apparently, it is very clear that to get ahead they have to refrain from speaking out an alternative opinion and tow the left or Labor party line.
toe not tow
see http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2012/07/19/report-generation-x-doesnt-care-about-climate-change
Why the drop? Study author Jon Miller says that climate change is a complex issue that requires a lot of time to fully understand. It also is not likely to start meaningfully affecting people’s lives for many years, when Generation X will have died out!
I really don’t know why you people keep doubting my bona-fides. I AM very reflective of not only university and public service thinking, but of most of mainstream Australia. It’s this blog’s contributors and commenters who are way out in fairyland with their views. Get around a bit more fellas. You really are in a very tiny minority.
Sinclair? Is that you?
Hey we’re knights of the Round Table, we dance whene’er we’re able. We do routines and chorus scenes with footwork impec cable!
I like being in a tiny minority with people like Freeman Dyson, Kepler, Wegener and Barry Marshall.
“If I were wrong, one would be enough.” – Einstein refuting “100 Authors Against Einstein”.
makes Gareth Hamilton part of the 70% that vote for other than labour and the majority for vote for abbott.
Just like the minority Rebel Alliance from Star Wars, fighting Darth Vader & his hordes of minions, Donna Laframboise has claimed we are the “Climate Rebels”.
And, we have ‘the force’ of empirical science with us.
Use the force.
Yes, well, if Steyn relies on a defense of fact-free opinion he could destroy his reputation.
Which, I’m guessing, is the main game for some. It’s probably only the useful idiots who thought the issue itself was important.
The issue might fade away, but will all the new government regs?
It is moments such as this i like to quote the great man of Faber College, Dean Wormer;
“Fat drunk and stupid is no way to go through life”
I think you could learn from this wisdom crapula.
i watched that movie again only a few weeks ago. I remember it being a revelation to see that during Orientation Week when i started Uni.
The hamster’s postings are too artless and fatuous to be the concoctions of prankster, he/she is absolutely authentic I believe.
see http://www2.nationalreview.com/pdf/2012-08-22_National_Review_Response_Letter.pdf to for ther lawyer’s mann.
points out that he is subject to pre-trial discovery.
A First Amendment defence seems to mean: the Constitution defends my right to state stupid, incorrect opinions and facts.
Steyn should rely on the truthfulness of his utterances, rather than his right to utter stupidities.
Careful Scapula you’ll get yourself on The Fisk Doctrine hit list
Of course you are.
And I’m capitalist marxist, when taking a break from being a Jewish Christian.