Climate scientist wins major court battle just in time for T

Gathered together in one place, for easy access, an agglomeration of writings and images relevant to the Rapeutation phenomenon.

Re: Climate scientist wins major court battle just in time f

Postby admin » Fri Feb 10, 2017 10:10 pm

Facts, Falsehoods and the First Amendment. The First Amendment sky is not falling as a result of Michael Mann’s case to proceed against the National Review Online.
by John B. Williams
Washington
(Mr. Williams represents Michael Mann in this lawsuit.)
Feb. 9, 2017

NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT

YOU ARE REQUIRED TO READ THE COPYRIGHT NOTICE AT THIS LINK BEFORE YOU READ THE FOLLOWING WORK, THAT IS AVAILABLE SOLELY FOR PRIVATE STUDY, SCHOLARSHIP OR RESEARCH PURSUANT TO 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107 AND 108. IN THE EVENT THAT THE LIBRARY DETERMINES THAT UNLAWFUL COPYING OF THIS WORK HAS OCCURRED, THE LIBRARY HAS THE RIGHT TO BLOCK THE I.P. ADDRESS AT WHICH THE UNLAWFUL COPYING APPEARED TO HAVE OCCURRED. THANK YOU FOR RESPECTING THE RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT OWNERS.


The First Amendment sky is not falling as a result of the recent decision of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals permitting climatologist Michael Mann’s case to proceed against the National Review Online, despite the claims of NRO’s attorneys Michael A. Carvin and Anthony Dick in “A Libel Suit Threatens Catastrophe for the Climate of Public Debate” (op-ed, Feb. 6). In this litigation, Dr. Mann is challenging NRO’s accusations that he engaged in scientific fraud when he published his “hockey stick” graph demonstrating the considerable rise in the earth’s temperatures. Messrs. Carvin and Dick assert that this decision is catastrophic for public debate because their client was simply "questioning" Dr. Mann's work and "voicing one's opinion."

To the contrary, NRO's efforts to characterize its false accusations of fraud as some sort of contribution to public debate ignores the fundamental difference between genuine opinion and knowing or reckless falsehoods. Protected opinion has its limits; fake news doesn't qualify. This has been the law for decades, and in a delightfully ironic twist the court repeatedly cited a 1976 defamation case successfully pursued on this very ground by none other than William F. Buckley -- the founder of National Review. The Buckley decision drew the sharp distinction between protected opinion and knowing falsehoods. The Mann v. NRO decision does nothing different; the First Amendment remains alive and well and undisturbed.

Messrs. Carvin and Dick also tell us how their position is supported by certain "friend-of-the-court briefs," including one filed by an organization called the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. It should be pointed out to your readers that a member of this committee is News Corp, which owns The Wall Street Journal.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 17218
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Return to A Growing Corpus of Analytical Materials

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest