Jump to content

Jury Orders Mark Steyn to Pay Michael Mann $1 Million for Defaming Him in Blog Post (Insert many many Expletives Here)


Valin

Recommended Posts

National Review

Ryan Mills

February 8, 2024 5:15 PM

A Washington, D.C., jury on Thursday ordered conservative pundit Mark Steyn to pay $1 million in punitive damages to climate scientist Michael Mann, determining that he was defamed in a 2012 blog post on National Review‘s website.

The jury also ordered science writer Rand Simberg to pay Mann $1,000 in punitive damages for defaming him in a blog post on the website of the libertarian Competitive Enterprise Institute.

Mann also won $1 from each writer in

The jury’s decision for Mann could have important implications for the free-speech rights of critics to comment on controversial matters without fear of legal reprisals. In a statement before the jury’s verdict Simberg said the case was about “the ability of myself and others to speak freely about the most important issues of our day, whether climate change or another issue,” according to the Associated Press. “If others are faced with over a decade of litigation for giving their opinions, we will all suffer.”

(Snip)

The jury found that both Simberg and Steyn had defamed Mann, that they had asserted or relied on provably false statements, that they had a high degree of awareness that their statements were probably false, and acted with “maliciousness, spite, ill will, vengeance, or deliberate intent” to harm Mann. The jury also found that Mann suffered actual injuries because of the blog posts.

Both Simberg and Steyn contended they were expressing opinions protected by the First Amendment.

(Snip)

But Victoria Weatherford, Simberg’s attorney, said that her client “truly believed in his heart” that what he wrote was true, and his blog post was protected by the First Amendment.

“Professor Mann is a public figure, and our First Amendment makes sure that each of us is free to comment on the most important issues of public concern without fear of being censored or silenced or bullied into submission,” she said.

“Rand is just a guy, just a blogger voicing his truly-held opinions on a topic that he believes is important,” she said, “and that is an inconvenient truth for Michael Mann.”

(Snip)

____________________________________________________

Jesus H Christ is it possible to get a Fair Trial in Washington DC, If you are on The Right?

From The Comments

"DC juries. Idiots."

"A colossal outrage in a case that should never have been brought. I am beginning to get a bad feeling about these lynching juries. If common-sense Americans still existed in sufficient numbers, this would be laughed out of court.

"In his post on the Corner section of National Review‘s website, Steyn distanced himself from the Sandusky analogy, but added that “he has a point.” He wrote that “Mann was the man behind the fraudulent climate-change ‘hockey-stick’ graph, the very ringmaster of the tree-ring circus,” a reference to climate data obtained through the analysis of tree rings."

Seriously? This was the extent of Steyn's "defamation"?"

 

"The fact that Mann's lawyer tied this case to climate science denial, and then to the 2020 election denial, to a Washington, D.C., jury tells you all you need to know."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MISBAILEY

Really Mr Mann... someone was "mean" to you and you can't take it ...first and I don't mean to be crude but "grow a pair" and second in the words of Taylor Swift "Shake it Off"

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, MISBAILEY said:

Really Mr Mann... someone was "mean" to you and you can't take it ...first and I don't mean to be crude but "grow a pair" and second in the words of Taylor Swift "Shake it Off"

 

You may not mean to be I OTOH have No Problem.  In fact Just getting warmed up.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ep. 15 | Punitive Mann

The verdict is in, and it’s a shocker. We break down the jury’s shocking decision to:

Find Mark Steyn and Rand Simberg liable for defamation
Decide the defendants knew their statements were false
Punish Mark more than Rand for mostly repeating Rand’s words with some context

We have an exclusive comment from Mark Steyn on how he feels, and his next steps. The fight is not over. And, we ask if Free Speech still exists in liberal American cities. Or are there protected people and ideas that are just Too Big To Question?
But let’s not forget what we learned about Michael Mann during these four weeks of trial, like those emails about “human filth” colleagues and the female scientist he falsely claimed slept her way to the top. We also learned how the independent investigation into his scientific malfeasance was nobbled at the last moment. Will the Streisand Effect work against Mann? We intend to keep working to let the public know about the emails and documents that were presented in court but that the mainstream media have been ignoring.
 

Thanks for coming on this ride with us. This story is not over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Feb. 9 2024 Climate Change Roundtable

The Climate Trial of the Century is over, and the result is an absolutely travesty of justice. A D.C. jury ruled yesterday that Mark Steyn must pay $1 in compensatory damages and an absurd $1 million in punitive damages to climate media star Michael Mann for his claimed defamation. His co-defendant, Rand Simberg, was socked with paying $1 in compensatory damages, but only $1,000 in punitive damages.

We followed the trial every day for nearly four weeks, and we can tell you that it was a disgrace to the professions in our legal system, the “profession” of juries to administer justice, and the professions in alarmist climate science. In short, the whole thing was a disgrace.

On episode 97 of Climate Change Roundtable, The Heartland Institute’s Anthony Watts, H. Sterling Burnett, Linnea Lueken, and Jim Lakely break down what happened in the trial, how this criminally unjust jury decision came to be, and what this means for the First Amendment rights of anyone who questions alarmist dogma in public.

________________________________________________________________

16 minute mark I have a brown shirt, does that mean I'm a Nazi?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Draggingtree

ic-upvoted.svg DC justice: Why Bother With a Trial ?

February 9, 2024 (6 Hours Ago)
2720461
 

Hockey Stick perpetrator Michael Mann won a preposterous lawsuit because in summation his lawyer improperly told the DC jury that the defendants were climate deniers and MAGA types.  In that courthouse, the judges, the jury pool and prosecutors are so deeply in the tank for partisan warfare against you and anybody who thinks like you that the pretense of a trial is an insult to western jurisprudence. Might as well skip it for the sake of candor.

Trump will also be convicted.

The continuing abuse of imprisoned J6 defendants is a bit of Havana or Pyongyang on the Potomac. Compare and contrast that with the treatment of illegal alien thugs in NY who beat the hell out of cops and simply walked out of the courthouse there. They actually did injure cops. (Thank God they were not parading or disrupting pro forma government actions.)

And the preposterous finding that Joe Biden cannot be tried or even accused because he is mentally defective…!?

The American  bi-partisan constitutional and cultural investment in the rule of law is dying. And people need to be made to pay for that. It is a betrayal of the highest order.

Published in General    

https://ricochet.com/1541386/dc-justice-why-bother-with-a-trial/

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Draggingtree
On 2/8/2024 at 6:13 PM, Valin said:
National Review

Ryan Mills

February 8, 2024 5:15 PM

A Washington, D.C., jury on Thursday ordered conservative pundit Mark Steyn to pay $1 million in punitive damages to climate scientist Michael Mann, determining that he was defamed in a 2012 blog post on National Review‘s website.

The jury also ordered science writer Rand Simberg to pay Mann $1,000 in punitive damages for defaming him in a blog post on the website of the libertarian Competitive Enterprise Institute.

Mann also won $1 from each writer in

The jury’s decision for Mann could have important implications for the free-speech rights of critics to comment on controversial matters without fear of legal reprisals. In a statement before the jury’s verdict Simberg said the case was about “the ability of myself and others to speak freely about the most important issues of our day, whether climate change or another issue,” according to the Associated Press. “If others are faced with over a decade of litigation for giving their opinions, we will all suffer.”

(Snip)

The jury found that both Simberg and Steyn had defamed Mann, that they had asserted or relied on provably false statements, that they had a high degree of awareness that their statements were probably false, and acted with “maliciousness, spite, ill will, vengeance, or deliberate intent” to harm Mann. The jury also found that Mann suffered actual injuries because of the blog posts.

Both Simberg and Steyn contended they were expressing opinions protected by the First Amendment.

(Snip)

But Victoria Weatherford, Simberg’s attorney, said that her client “truly believed in his heart” that what he wrote was true, and his blog post was protected by the First Amendment.

“Professor Mann is a public figure, and our First Amendment makes sure that each of us is free to comment on the most important issues of public concern without fear of being censored or silenced or bullied into submission,” she said.

“Rand is just a guy, just a blogger voicing his truly-held opinions on a topic that he believes is important,” she said, “and that is an inconvenient truth for Michael Mann.”

(Snip)

____________________________________________________

Jesus H Christ is it possible to get a Fair Trial in Washington DC, If you are on The Right?

From The Comments

"DC juries. Idiots."

"A colossal outrage in a case that should never have been brought. I am beginning to get a bad feeling about these lynching juries. If common-sense Americans still existed in sufficient numbers, this would be laughed out of court.

"In his post on the Corner section of National Review‘s website, Steyn distanced himself from the Sandusky analogy, but added that “he has a point.” He wrote that “Mann was the man behind the fraudulent climate-change ‘hockey-stick’ graph, the very ringmaster of the tree-ring circus,” a reference to climate data obtained through the analysis of tree rings."

Seriously? This was the extent of Steyn's "defamation"?"

 

"The fact that Mann's lawyer tied this case to climate science denial, and then to the 2020 election denial, to a Washington, D.C., jury tells you all you need to know."

This is plum ridiculousness, where do they find these people. I can see 1 r maybe two -- three but 12==or 6 all at once 

Spoiler

Democrat calling list

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • 1719296598
×
×
  • Create New...