A jury has awarded climate scientist Michael Mann more than $1 million in
a defamation lawsuit he brought against a former scholar and a media personality who lampooned Mann's work.
The legal battle has been ongoing for more than a decade. Mann initially filed a lawsuit in 2012, after Rand Simberg, a former scholar for the Competitive Enterprise Institute, and Mark Steyn, a TV and radio
personality who wrote for the National Review, wrote blog posts ridiculing Mann's scientific research that warned of rising temperatures, and
compared him to Jerry Sandusky, the former Pennsylvania State football
coach who was convicted of child molestation.
...
A jury in the Washington, DC, Superior Court civil case awarded Mann $1 million in punitive damages and a dollar from each defendant in
compensatory damages.
...
"I hope this verdict sends a message that falsely attacking climate scientists is not protected speech," Mann said in a statement posted on X. Representatives for the defendants did not respond to CNN's requests for comment.
...fateful day in August of 2017, America
loses more of its freedom of speech.
On Sat, 10 Feb 2024 18:59:13 -0500, Here is the News <news@here.anon>
wrote:
...fateful day in August of 2017, America
loses more of its freedom of speech.
Freedom speech....jury was allowed to say their opinion
https://dailystormer.in/jury-awards-climate-scientist-more-than-1-million-because-people-criticized-his-work/
Jury Awards "Climate Scientist" More Than $1 Million Because People Criticized His Work
Andrew Anglin
February 10, 2024
It seems that every week since that fateful day in August of 2017, America loses more of its freedom of speech.
Much is lost through the ever-intensifying digital censorship, but perhaps more damning are the civil lawsuits, where courts are simply deciding that entire categories of speech are illegal.
CNN:
A jury has awarded climate scientist Michael Mann more than $1 million in
a defamation lawsuit he brought against a former scholar and a media
personality who lampooned Mann's work.
The legal battle has been ongoing for more than a decade. Mann initially
filed a lawsuit in 2012, after Rand Simberg, a former scholar for the
Competitive Enterprise Institute, and Mark Steyn, a TV and radio
personality who wrote for the National Review, wrote blog posts ridiculing >> Mann's scientific research that warned of rising temperatures, and
compared him to Jerry Sandusky, the former Pennsylvania State football
coach who was convicted of child molestation.
...
A jury in the Washington, DC, Superior Court civil case awarded Mann $1
million in punitive damages and a dollar from each defendant in
compensatory damages.
...
"I hope this verdict sends a message that falsely attacking climate
scientists is not protected speech," Mann said in a statement posted on X. >> Representatives for the defendants did not respond to CNN's requests for
comment.
What the hell?
How is it not protected speech to attack a "climate scientist"?
What even is this?
Disagreeing with someone is not defamation. This is abject nonsense, it is a judge "legislating from the bench," taking away from basic First Amendment freedoms through an absurd ruling.
Yes, a jury decided, but it was the duty of the judge to dismiss this gibberish as an obvious attack on constitutionally-protected speech rights.
This is actually, somehow, even more extreme than the Alex Jones
"defamation" cases. These courts are going through, step-by-step, and creating entire categories of political speech that are no longer allowed.
Elvis Dunderhoff contributed to this article.
On Sat, 10 Feb 2024, Here is the News wrote:
https://dailystormer.in/jury-awards-climate-scientist-more-than-1-million-because-people-criticized-his-work/
Jury Awards "Climate Scientist" More Than $1 Million Because People
Criticized His Work
Andrew Anglin
February 10, 2024
It seems that every week since that fateful day in August of 2017, America >> loses more of its freedom of speech.
Much is lost through the ever-intensifying digital censorship, but perhaps >> more damning are the civil lawsuits, where courts are simply deciding that >> entire categories of speech are illegal.
CNN:
A jury has awarded climate scientist Michael Mann more than $1 million in >>> a defamation lawsuit he brought against a former scholar and a media
personality who lampooned Mann's work.
The legal battle has been ongoing for more than a decade. Mann initially >>> filed a lawsuit in 2012, after Rand Simberg, a former scholar for the
Competitive Enterprise Institute, and Mark Steyn, a TV and radio
personality who wrote for the National Review, wrote blog posts ridiculing >>> Mann's scientific research that warned of rising temperatures, and
compared him to Jerry Sandusky, the former Pennsylvania State football
coach who was convicted of child molestation.
...
A jury in the Washington, DC, Superior Court civil case awarded Mann $1
million in punitive damages and a dollar from each defendant in
compensatory damages.
...
"I hope this verdict sends a message that falsely attacking climate
scientists is not protected speech," Mann said in a statement posted on X. >>> Representatives for the defendants did not respond to CNN's requests for >>> comment.
What the hell?
How is it not protected speech to attack a "climate scientist"?
What even is this?
Disagreeing with someone is not defamation. This is abject nonsense, it is a >> judge "legislating from the bench," taking away from basic First Amendment >> freedoms through an absurd ruling.
Yes, a jury decided, but it was the duty of the judge to dismiss this
gibberish as an obvious attack on constitutionally-protected speech rights. >>
This is actually, somehow, even more extreme than the Alex Jones
"defamation" cases. These courts are going through, step-by-step, and
creating entire categories of political speech that are no longer allowed. >>
Elvis Dunderhoff contributed to this article.
Ahh! This happened in sweden, and led to decades of uncontrolled and unrestricted arabian immigration to sweden. For a long time it was illegal
to criticize immigration and now sweden has a low intensive civil war
going on in many suburbs and plenty of hidden terrorists who hide in the country.
Learn from the bad example of sweden, americans, and stop this madness or else you'll become like sweden!
On Sun, 11 Feb 2024 11:53:28 +0100, D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
Ahh! This happened in sweden, and led to decades of uncontrolled and
unrestricted arabian immigration to sweden. For a long time it was illegal >> to criticize immigration and now sweden has a low intensive civil war
going on in many suburbs and plenty of hidden terrorists who hide in the
country.
Learn from the bad example of sweden, americans, and stop this madness or
else you'll become like sweden!
Why should we believe your lies?
Swill
--
"Trump has erased the assumption that credibility is a nice thing to have."
- David Brooks
Not left, not right, https://www.forwardparty.com/
Heroyam slava! Glory to the Heroes!
Sláva Ukrajíni! Glory to Ukraine!
Putin tse prezervatyv! Putin is a condom!
Go here to donate to Ukrainian relief. <https://www2.deloitte.com/ua/uk/pages/registration-forms/help-cities.html>
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 50:25:41 |
| Calls: | 10,397 |
| Calls today: | 5 |
| Files: | 14,067 |
| Messages: | 6,417,317 |
| Posted today: | 1 |