Supreme Court lets lawsuit by climate scientist continue against conservative outlets

[mahatmakanejeeves]

Source: Washington Post

Courts & Law
Supreme Court lets lawsuit by climate scientist continue against conservative outlets

By Robert Barnes
November 25, 2019 at 11:38 a.m. EST

A climate scientist may pursue his defamation lawsuit against a magazine and a Washington think tank after the Supreme Court on Monday declined to intervene at this stage of the litigation. ... The National Review and the Competitive Enterprise Institute had asked the court to review a decision by local District of Columbia courts that said the lawsuit by Penn State professor Michael Mann could continue. ... The court turned down the request without comment, but Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. dissented, saying the case “presents questions that go to the very heart of the guarantee of freedom of speech and freedom of the press.”
....

Mann is an internationally recognized expert on climate change and has published work that blamed human activity for global warning. The work was criticized by some scientists, but an investigation by Penn State cleared him of any wrongdoing. ... That did not stop the criticism. In a CEI blog, Rand Simberg wrote that Penn State had “covered up wrongdoing” by Mann, and characterized Mann as the “Jerry Sandusky of climate science,” because he had “molested and tortured data in service of politicized science.” ... Sandusky is a former Penn State football coach who was convicted of molesting children.

Mark Steyn picked up the theme in a post on the Corner, a blog hosted by National Review Online, the website of National Review. ... In his post, Steyn said that while he would not have “extended the metaphor all the way into the lockerroom showers,” Mann was “behind the fraudulent climate-change” study and the investigation clearing him was a coverup.

Mann demanded retractions and apologies from CEI and National Review. ... Instead, National Review published a response from its editor Rich Lowry entitled “Get Lost.” He refused to retract and clarified that “fraudulent doesn’t mean honest-to-goodness criminal fraud. It means intellectually bogus and wrong.” ... Mann sued.

The publications and authors tried to have the lawsuits dismissed under the District of Columbia’s “anti-SLAPP Act.” SLAPP stands for “Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation,” and the laws are intended to provide for early dismissal of meritless lawsuits filed against people for the exercise of First Amendment rights. ... But the District of Columbia Court of Appeals said it could not find at this stage of the litigation that a jury could not review the evidence and rule for Mann, and said the lawsuit could go forward.
....

Robert Barnes has been a Washington Post reporter and editor since 1987. He joined The Post to cover Maryland politics, and he has served in various editing positions, including metropolitan editor and national political editor. He has covered the Supreme Court since November 2006. Follow https://twitter.com/scotusreporter

Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-lets-lawsuit-by-climate-scientist-continue-against-conservative-outlets/2019/11/25/710ce7a6-0f94-11ea-bf62-eadd5d11f559_story.html

---

Supreme Court lets lawsuit by climate scientist continue against conservative outlets. Also, won't intervene in case of Adnan Syed

Link to tweet

-- -- -- -- --

Rich Lowry went to UVA, as did Ken Cuccinelli.

-- -- -- -- --

Be careful what you ask for. I frown upon the suppression of speech.

[The Mouth]

1. Paywalled

[mahatmakanejeeves]

2. Pay.

LBN exists to alert you to late breaking news. If you want to read more, there are plenty of sites not behind paywalls where you can do that. Or, you can wait for this to show up on TV.

Does your local public library have access to the Washington Post? Many do.

Thanks for writing.

[Red Mountain]

3. open the article in a private/incognito window

I read it that way.

[SoCalNative]

4. Or, here's a novel idea

maybe subscribe to WaPo. It's not that expensive annually when you break it down to a daily rate.

[jayschool2013]

5. +1 NT

[mahatmakanejeeves]

11. Full disclosure: I have a gummint account, so it's not as if I'm eating my own cooking.

My family subscribed to the print edition of the Washington Post for decades. After my mom died, I had to cancel the subscription, solely because I ran out of time to read it. It piled up, and up, and up. Something had to give.

The daily Post is $2, maybe. Considering that The Wall Street Journal. is $4 for the daily paper, and $5 on the weekend, digital access to the Post is a bargain. That's the way I'll go when I finally get a handle on all this clutter. I do not have the room for anything printed on paper anymore.

Thanks for writing.

[Polybius]

6. Online news should be free

It was for years. Many still are, like CNN.

[SoCalNative]

7. CNN isn't a newspaper

there's a big difference

[Submariner]

9. Washington Post is a deal at $40/year for digital

In comparison, my hometown paper (Boston Globe) is costing me $337/year for digital access only.

[JonLP24]

10. I did but the bias against Progressives was obvious

Columnists like Jennifer Rubin are why I no longer have an account. I had NYT too. Paying for every subscription with a paywall adds up plus they raise the price on you after you sign up for their deal.

[jpak]

8. BWAHAAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!1111

[ArizonaLib]

12. So it is allowed to move forward

but still can be appealed to the Supreme Court?