The free speech trial involving conservative commentator Mark Steyn and liberal climate scientist Michael Mann may finally be moving forward after four years of delayed litigation.
Trial of the Century Update! https://t.co/srHB0EsLwY #BigClimateVsFreeSpeech pic.twitter.com/rMLPNVuyQ3
— Mark Steyn (@MarkSteynOnline) June 1, 2016
….
But why exactly is Steyn being sued? Essentially, for his outspoken skepticism of climate change. Steyn wrote a blog post for National Review criticizing Michael Mann, a climatologist at Penn State University, for his work on climate science, asserting that Mann’s “hockey-stick” graph was fraudulent. Mann sued Steyn for defamation, arguing that he had a right to stop Steyn from criticizing his work essentially because the “science” was on his side.
….
As Steyn explains in this video, Mann’s argument would empower our judicial system to become arbiters of scientific fact and grant them the power to silence dissenting thought if such thought disagreed with “scientific fact.”
….
In the meantime, Steyn continues to wait for his trial to proceed. But he doesn’t seem optimistic: “I don’t entirely rule out that, at the present rate of progress, I myself will die before this lethargic bench brings the thing to trial.”
- Discussion
-
Defending Free Speech: Mark Steyn Wants His Day in Court https://t.co/D0Jh8eIN9s
— Mark Steyn (@MarkSteynOnline) June 3, 2016
Such Suits in my opinion comes down to luck of the draw, you get a progressive liberal judge facts and science has little to do with it. In the current politically correct socialist environment the best odds that can be hoped for baseline is 50/50 win or lose, after that on appeal those same odds remain. Justice it seems these days is agenda driven, arguments based on just the facts are quickly becoming obsolete.
Then again maybe it is just me daily bleeding cynicism.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.