Michael Mann Defamation Suit Against National Review Writer to Proceed

From Ars Technica comes this update in the defamation case filed by climate researcher Michael Mann against political commentator Mark Steyn of National Review magazine, who rhetorically compared Mann to Penn State coach Jerry Sandusky and accused him of publishing intentionally misleading research results. "The defendants tried to get it dismissed under the District of Columbia's Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP) statute, which attempts to keep people from being silenced by frivolous lawsuits. The judge hearing the case denied the attempt and then promptly retired; Mann next amended his complaint, leading an appeals court to send the whole thing back to a new trial judge. Now the new judge has denied the SLAPP attempt yet again. In a decision released late last week (and hosted by defendant Mark Steyn), the judge recognizes that the comparison to a child molester is part of the "opinions and rhetorical hyperbole" that are protected speech when used against public figures like Mann. However, the accompanying accusations of fraud are not exempt:"

Comments

good

[Anonymous Coward]

That should teach others to defile our religion

Re:Steyn is Slime

[Ol Olsoc]

By the standards of science, peer-review and SEVEN INVESTIGATIONS.

Welcome to Slashdot, haruchai, where posting simple truths brings out the deniers, to silence you.

To mod your post flame bait? Come on.

It's sad, that many of those who deny AGW will complain vociferously about censorship of their view, but are quick to try to bury anything they disagree with.

And yes, Mann has been investigated many times, and found innocent. Wait to see what they do to my post.

The mark of a REAL scientist

[Mr. Firewall]

It seems that Michael Mann spends half of his time suing people for defaming him, and the other half defaming others on Twitter.

h/t Judith Curry