From the “chilling effect” of sunlight department, Steyn writes:
Many “climate skeptics” wonder why the defendants would want to get the complaint dismissed rather than put Mann through a trial in which he would have to take the witness stand and discuss his work under oath. I can understand their enthusiasm for this but for me the priority has always been the broader cause of free speech:
Defendant Steyn stands by his words and is willing to defend them at trial and before a jury, should it come to that. However, as a noted human-rights activist in Canada and elsewhere, he believes that the cause of freedom of expression in the United States would best be served by dismissing the amended complaint, and that a trial would have a significant “chilling effect” in America of the kind the Anti-SLAPP laws are specifically designed to prevent.
The “chilling effect” is a bigger threat to civilized society than all Dr Mann’s warming. But the judge chose instead to put us on the road to a full-scale trial. So be it.
As readers may have deduced from my absence at National Review Online and my termination of our joint representation, there have been a few differences between me and the rest of the team. The lesson of the last year is that you win a free-speech case not by adopting a don’t-rock-the-boat, keep-mum, narrow procedural posture but by fighting it in the open, in the bracing air and cleansing sunlight of truth and justice.
=============================================================
Unfortunately, the motion was denied.
Read the whole thing here: http://www.steynonline.com/6025/trial-and-error
![RoadCones-300x224[1]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/roadcones-300x2241.jpg?quality=83)
Mann would be a fool to pursue the case further, but then again, his ego is often so large that I surmise the state department of transportation must be forced to put out orange traffic cones ahead of him when he travels, so I doubt it will happen.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
john says: January 23, 2014 at 1:26 pm
“Mr. Steyn is playing the cards as best he can, but, I would imagine he will be out moneyed and out lawyered substantially due to the nature of the case.”
According to Adler at Volokh, he’s now representing himself. That should save money.
Bart
“No. It means they have to prove they themselves were persuaded by the evidence without reckless disregard for the truth. That is the standard in the US.”
I couldn’t find your standard by consulting my Black’s Law Dictionary. But, it occurred to me that that isn’t the appropriate standard anyway. That would hold true if the defendants were accused of fraud. They aren’t, they accused Mann of fraud. The issue here is defamation.
“A communication is defamatory if it tends so to harm the reputation of another as to lower him in the estimation of the community or to deter third persons from associating or dealing with him. The meaning of a communication is that which the recipient correctly, or mistakenly but reasonably, understands that it was intended to express.”
Black’s Law Dictionary, fifth Ed.
Of course, such statements must be false. There is little question that Steyn intended to harm Mann’s reputation. That’s pretty much a given. I suspect the defendants probably knew the allegation was false or acted in reckless disregard for the truth. That’s what evidence is for.
Doug
Bart & Joseph W.: Is there an authoritative case that states that a university professor is a “public official” or “public authority”?
The Sullivan v. NYT case is clearly distinguishable from Mann v. Steyn in that Sullivan had official authority over the matters on which the NYT was alleging misconduct. Mann has no official powers that would attract the “public authority” label, that I can see.
Nick Stokes,
Thank you for pointing to the Adler article. Too bad you didn’t provide a link, so we could weigh in.
Doug, your suspicions are irrelevant. Mann’s work has been suitably shown to be both shoddy and deceptive. That you refuse to see or acknowledge that is your problem. He is also, clearly and exuberantly a public figure engaged in clearly political activities and is hiding, legally, behind the persona of a disinterested, innocent researcher. He was/is a legit target of criticism for his work and the fact that you want the rest of us to bow to some “authority” and see Steyn et al. punished via the lawsuit says all we need to know about you.
But please, continue to enlighten us on your obtuseness and blinkered perspective.
cheers,
Alex
Chicago style use government to punish your political enemies . . it happened in 1930 to 1944 in some nations including the FDR America.
http://articlevprojecttorestoreliberty.com/history-of-political-parties.html
Doug says:
January 23, 2014 at 3:01 pm
“I couldn’t find your standard by consulting my Black’s Law Dictionary.”
Joseph W. @ur momisugly January 23, 2014 at 2:40 pm referred you to the precedent in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan.
” I suspect the defendants probably knew the allegation was false or acted in reckless disregard for the truth.”
The defendants believed, and I expect believe, that the allegations are true. I would bet that a secret ballot would show most people here believe them true. Even the guys at uber-alarmist blog Skeptical Science apparently believe they are true.
Grant A. Brown says:
January 23, 2014 at 3:06 pm
A Nobel Prize winner, even a phony one, is a public figure. Mann has been at the center of the controversy for over a decade now. If he is not a public figure, no one is.
Doug, “They have a lot to worry about, Mann doesn’t.”
The contents of Mann’s own, “Back to 1400 CENSORED” file show he knew his hockey stick reconstruction failed the 1400 verification test. He obscured that result and published anyway. That seems pretty fraudulent to me.
If Steyn ends up in court he needs to use his brains a lot and chose his words carefully. A smart alec is not what climate truth needs.
One of the most important aspects of this case may be to expose any RICO items. Then it’s game on. This is something I have been working on for a long time but waiting for them to make the first move.
Nick Stokes says:
January 23, 2014 at 2:48 pm
Really bad move from a legal perspective. I would certainly hope that competent legal advisor(s) be consulted seriously.
I’m always amazed at how long legal issues take to be resolved. Sure the truth doesn’t have a deadline but I’ve also noticed that lawyers are incredibly patient in all things legal.
Popcorn, please. And, thank you, Steyn.
Don’t miss Adman’s video post@12:15. It’s different from the “Hide the Decline” video that includes the same screen shot.
L awfare
I s
B eneath
E thical
L awyers
Who represents Mann?
Charlie Johnson (@SemperBanU) says:
January 23, 2014 at 4:56 pm
And, who is paying the legal fees?
I am a big fan of Mark Steyn having read his books and his columns faithfully. I find it unfortunate that he is no longer posting his column on National Review Online. I always looked forward to his Friday weekend column and when it stopped, the big absence in NRO was very obvious. I wasn’t sure whether it was over the little peeing contest between Steyn and his editor in late December or over Mann. If it is over Mann I now have another reason to detest Mann (the bogus Nobel prize winner and want-to-be climate scientist.)
The U.S. Supreme Court stated in Curtis Publishing v. Butts that purposeful activity amounting to a thrusting of his personality into the “vortex” of an important public controversy, makes someone a public figure. Consequently Mann is a public figure. Libel of a public figure requires proof of actual malice, which is very very hard to prove.
As far as insurance goes, libel is an intentional tort, and as a general rule, insurance does not cover intentional torts, so the Steyn’s insurance co. probably has nothing to do with this case.
Back-handed crack; ever read anything prosaic from the 15th century? By some measures against ‘back then’ we are illiterate, innumerate, AND imbecilic …
.
dbstealey says:January 23, 2014 at 3:15 pm
“Thank you for pointing to the Adler article. Too bad you didn’t provide a link”
Well, this is the link I would have given.
So the Womann-Named-Sue is on the warpath again . . .
For the legal minds here, can Mark Steyn sue his attorneys for abuse of process?
Steyn tosses ball to Mann!
Mann now visibly in shock as he waddles across the court, stumbles, looses the ball and then regains the ball and then issues a call to the Coach, “TIME OUT”. Coach accepts and motions to the Judges: “TIME OUT.”
Mann staggers to the line and collapses.
Coach runs over, grabs his seemingly lifeless body. The “TEAM” is in an UPROAR.
Medics enter onto the floor. Some really quick actions there, “Vietnam Style,” these chaps know triage and what to do and where they are at!
Fans in the bleachers getting restless! Need something! What!
Coach sees! Knows! Walks onto the center of the court with a microphone tied to the house PA system.
Ladys and Gentlemen. Thank you. We hereby forfeit the contest and relinquish all claim we may or may not have made!
Crowd goes berserk! Chairs start to be thrown onto the court. Fights erupt in the bleaches. Even the referees are duking it out with fans.
A really big “Olf” with an ax lays into Mann, splits he’s chest open, and proceeds to “halve him” from head to penis in front of everybody.
Blood Flows.
2014 on the East Coast of the USA is not so much different than -0014 in a small village in Palestine whose inhabitants were violated by the Crusaders seeking the Holy Grail, like Mann today.
Ha ha LOL FU Jolly Good
Looking, now, beyond the narrow issue of Mark Steyn’s making fighting for free speech (versus doing that along with promoting science truth) his sole goal…. .
While I support our Noble Warrior for Truth, Mark Steyn, in his decision about the substance of his defense (i.e., focusing on freedom of speech, v. truth-in-science)
AND
I respect his choice to fire his attorney even though it does, indeed, appear to be a foolish move, for I have no IDEA what actually has been going on between him and Shannen Coffin, et. al., who are, incidentally, world class attorneys,
EVEN SO,
Steyn’s remarks about fighting the battle for free speech in the “sunlight,” are perplexing.
There is only one way to win a lawsuit in a country such as the United States: follow the Rules of Procedure. A crooked judge may prevent you from winning, even if you do, but, there is NO winning if you ignore them.
One may find it refreshingly free or great publicity (hm…. that just may the crux of this entire latest move ….) or great fun to stand on a virtual corner and take one’s case to the virtual streets, but it will not affect in one iota what happens in the courtroom. There is no appeal to the public. This isn’t about repealing a bad law. The substantive law of defamation is not at issue. The issue is simply that the defendants have not violated it. This is simply a civil case which, SHOULD BE resolved, in the end, for the defendants (for the law is overwhelmingly on the side of the defendants, here), must simply run its course through the necessary motions and hearings. That is the ONLY path to victory in a lawsuit; following the law both substantive AND procedural (and the possibility of an “Agreed Order,” or settlement, is, of course, a part of that process). Patience is, as was observed above, essential to being a successful litigator.
It would be helpful if Steyn would be more candid about the specific procedural disagreements he had. Going only from the motions filed, it appears that his former attorneys were doing everything properly. They were dealing with a blatantly incompetent judge. Whether, now, they are dealing with an honestly mistaken one or a grossly incompetent one or a crooked one, remains to be seen.
So, bottom line: I am ignorant of too many of the facts upon which Steyn is relying to intelligently evaluate his decision to fire his attorneys; given the little we have been told, however, until he explains himself more completely, it appears that it was a foolish move (and I hope this is NOT the case) based on ignorance of how the U. S. justice system and the Fed. Rules of Civ. Procedure work …..
along with an admirably courageous but naïve belief that one can win a lawsuit by arguing one’s case on the street corner. Certainly, if that were a viable option, no one could do it better than Steyn, but that avenue is simply a dead end.
Looking forward to hearing more details from Steyn on all this. And wishing him all the success in the world.
The First Amendment states: “Congress shall make no law… abridging freedom of speech, or of the press…” Defamation, in the British tradition that I am familiar with in Canada, is a common-law action that depends on no laws enacted by parliament. So at first blush, as long as it is a case of citizen vs. citizen, I still don’t see how the First Amendment is in any way relevant.
Now, if a government authority or official is the Plaintiff in a defamation suit, as in Sullivan v. NYT, perhaps the First Amendment could be stretched to offer the Defendant some extra protection from the government official. The phrase “Congress shall make no law” would have to be extended to mean “No government authority shall take any action…” That’s quite a stretch, but perhaps defendable.
But even that does not go far enough to make Mann v. Steyn into a First Amendment case, unless somehow the definition of “government authority or official” could in turn be stretched to include any government employee. Mann has no actual “authority” over anything, and does not act on behalf of the government, qua professor or researcher. For the purposes of the defamation suit, Mann is just a citizen, as far as I can see.
Nor do I see how the First Amendment can be extended to protect Defendants from defamation against “public figures”, where that is a function of mere notoriety. Justin Bieber is a “public figure” in the sense that he is in the public eye; how does that open him up to criticism that would not be tolerable to any other citizen?
I cannot claim to be an expert on American free-speech law, and perhaps the above reasoning is completely contrary to settled legal doctrine. (Could it be that the “public figure” doctrine has developed from American common law, quite separate from any First Amendment considerations?) If so, it is very bizarre legal doctrine, IMO.
Janice Moore,
Good comment. I agree.
Dear Mr. Grant Brown,
Just a few quick thoughts for you to consider:
The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States is highly relevant in this case. Freedom of speech is protected, here in the U.S., to a greater extent than anywhere else in the world.
You could start your research here (if you are so inclined):
findlaw.com, Annotation 18: http://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment1/annotation18.html
Re: a “public figure,” such as Mann is (this is not only clear on the facts of the case, but was admitted by Plaintiff Mann, so it is not an issue in controversy), the freedom of speech to say what you like about him is very broad. “Malice” must be proven (by Mann — NOT DIS-proven by Steyn). It doesn’t matter that it is not “tolerable.” Freedom of speech trumps all. And always, truth is an absolute defense (and if the statement is not susceptible of being proven true or false, then there is no defamation).
British law stemming from the Star Chamber’s tort of “Outrage” favors what you (are you British? it’s congenital, I think — they tend to value not upsetting people more than they value freedom of speech) talk about re: Justin Bieber (to prevent duels, I guess). Americans say, “Just ignore them, Justin — if it matters to you, issue a press release refuting them.” The British say: “Justin has a right to fight over that, therefore, we are not going to let you say that.”
I find that while many non-Americans understand and agree with our First Amendment jurisprudence, even more just don’t know enough about it to understand it. From what you’ve written above, you appear to be condemning what you do not understand at all.
I hope that you will read up on the First Amendment and the Natural Law jurisprudence of freedom of speech. John Milton, Edmund Burke, James Madison, and many, many, MANY, others have written on it in great detail. It is the FOUNDATION OF A FREE SOCIETY. It is your birthright, Mr. Brown! Just because you were born — isn’t that wonderful?
Learn what riches are yours to enjoy! (er, in America, that is) Why, you could even publish a comment on WUWT that says, “Obama is a jerk!” Don’t like that one? Okay. “Mann is a stinking l1ar!” How about that?
While some people like to wave it around (usually quite angrily and hatefully, heh) as a kind of penalty flag, “hate speech” is not a significant legal exception to First Amendment Freedom of Expression — and, so long as America is, it never will be.
Your truth-in-science ally,
Janice