Tweet
Some goober was saying something earlier about a court loss he heard about from a second-hand scavenger news site. It was pretty confused, but the gist was that the media from which the scavenger's scavenger had ripped the story was somehow guilty of ignoring it.
I hear that's actually convincing in some parts.
There's been an update.
Supreme Court Acts in Campaign Finance and Libel Cases
NRO and CEI have been mellifluously arguing their free speech rights shield them from libel. I believe the expression used by the NRO's Rich Lowry was, Get lost." To date, that's a direction yet to be found convincing, either to Mann personally, or to the courts. But the case has definitely dragged on. Libel cases tend to do that, or so I hear.
The court's denial included a dissent from Alito.
I hear that's actually convincing in some parts.
There's been an update.
Supreme Court Acts in Campaign Finance and Libel Cases
Climate Change and Libel
The court turned away appeals from National Review and the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a libertarian advocacy group, in a libel suit brought by Michael E. Mann, a climate scientist at Penn State. Professor Mann contends that the defendants accused him of academic fraud in likening him to Jerry Sandusky, a former assistant football coach at the university who was convicted of sexual assault.
“Instead of molesting children, he has molested and tortured data,” the contested articles said of Mr. Mann. The defendants argued that the statement and others critical of Professor Mann’s work were opinions protected by the First Amendment. But lower courts allowed the case to move forward.
As is its custom, the Supreme Court gave no reasons for turning down the appeals in National Review v. Mann, No. 18-1451, and Competitive Enterprise Institute v. Mann, No. 18-1477. The case will now move forward in the trial court.
The court turned away appeals from National Review and the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a libertarian advocacy group, in a libel suit brought by Michael E. Mann, a climate scientist at Penn State. Professor Mann contends that the defendants accused him of academic fraud in likening him to Jerry Sandusky, a former assistant football coach at the university who was convicted of sexual assault.
“Instead of molesting children, he has molested and tortured data,” the contested articles said of Mr. Mann. The defendants argued that the statement and others critical of Professor Mann’s work were opinions protected by the First Amendment. But lower courts allowed the case to move forward.
As is its custom, the Supreme Court gave no reasons for turning down the appeals in National Review v. Mann, No. 18-1451, and Competitive Enterprise Institute v. Mann, No. 18-1477. The case will now move forward in the trial court.
NRO and CEI have been mellifluously arguing their free speech rights shield them from libel. I believe the expression used by the NRO's Rich Lowry was, Get lost." To date, that's a direction yet to be found convincing, either to Mann personally, or to the courts. But the case has definitely dragged on. Libel cases tend to do that, or so I hear.
The court's denial included a dissent from Alito.
Comment