1 posted on
01/25/2014 9:03:37 AM PST by
Valpal1
To: Valpal1
Mark Steyn should be recorded as one of the most prolific, thoughtful, and evocative writers of our time.
Michael Mann should go down.
2 posted on
01/25/2014 9:23:03 AM PST by
Carry_Okie
(Grovelnator Shwarzenkaiser: fasionable fascism one charade at a time.)
To: Valpal1
When his candidate Mark Herring also prevailed over the GOP in the attorney general's race, Mann crowed and published tweets from his acolytes congratulating him on "two fresh notches on your hockey stick." That would seem, definitively, to move the hockey stick into the realm of political speech explicitly protected by the First Amendment It seems to me that when Mann started advocating political solutions to global warming that he inserted himself in to politics and left private life behind. He should have only very limited protection from any slander just as any public figure does.
3 posted on
01/25/2014 9:36:08 AM PST by
Pontiac
(The welfare state must fail because it is contrary to human nature and diminishes the human spirit.)
To: Valpal1
You might want to include the latest update on this case. There was a decision this past Wednesday, Jan 22. Per the Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/01/23/mann-v-steyn-mann-wins-round-two/):
“On Wednesday, Judge Frederick Weisberg handed climate scientist Michael Mann a potentially significant victory in his defamation suit against Mark Steyn, National Review, Rand Simberg, and the Competitive Enterprise Institute. In a relatively brief order, Judge Weisberg denied the defendants motions to dismiss and lifted the stay on discovery in the suit.”
Read more at the link.
6 posted on
01/25/2014 10:47:58 AM PST by
ConstantSkeptic
(Be careful about preconceptions)
To: JLS
7 posted on
01/25/2014 1:36:34 PM PST by
Slings and Arrows
(You can't have Ingsoc without an Emmanuel Goldstein.)
To: Valpal1
——we are now entering the second year of the anti-SLAPP phase of our case-——
The purpose of law in America is not to protect the innocent from claims of guilt. The purpose of the law is to enrich lawyers.
Those that accuse and those that defend are all guilty of unjust enrichment
9 posted on
01/27/2014 5:29:14 AM PST by
bert
((K.E. N.P. N.C. +12 ..... History is a process, not an event)
To: Valpal1
This highlights what RINO GOPe cowards are running the NR today, that they lost Steyn over free speech.
10 posted on
01/27/2014 5:36:16 AM PST by
Travis McGee
(www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com)
To: Valpal1
Mark Steyn is indeed on a lonely outpost defending the 1st Amendment and America. It's a shame so few native born Americans seem willing to do the same nowadays.
No doubt that has a lot to do with the massive number of Liberal lawyers and Liberal judges infesting this once fair land. They are eating out our substance as well as our freedom and liberty and making a nice living doing so.
11 posted on
01/27/2014 7:25:27 AM PST by
Gritty
(Nobody wants to hear about American exceptionalism when the issue is American ineffectualism-MSteyn)
To: Valpal1
At any rate, it seems to me that a fear of offending judges is unbecoming in a free people. So screw that.Ah, Mark, we love your eloquence!!! I sit in awe.
13 posted on
01/27/2014 5:40:41 PM PST by
NonValueAdded
(It's not the penalty, it's the lack of coverage on 1 Jan. Think about it.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson