Posted on 02/23/2014 10:19:15 PM PST by neverdem
Every side in the political debate has a natural tendency to appeal to freedom of speech when they feel threatened—but to ignore (or initiate) threats to the free speech of the other side. My favorite example is from the early 1990s, when the Yeltsin government dispossessed Russia's Communist Party of the vast holdings it had amassed in the decades when it controlled the state. The Communist Party screamed in protest, denouncing the supposed attack on its "property rights and freedom of speech." Which was pretty rich, considering that the Communists had just spent 70 years ruthlessly stamping out everyone else's property rights and freedom of speech.
This tendency is captured in an old expression popularized by Nat Hentoff: free speech for me, but not for thee.
I was reminded of this in coming across a little sidelight to Mann vs. Steyn, the defamation lawsuit filed by scientist-turned-activist Michael Mann in an attempt to suppress the speech of global warming skeptics, starting with conservative writer Mark Steyn.
As I have explained elsewhere Mann is attempting to legally punish any attempt to "question his intellect and reasoning"—that's from the DC Superior Court, which preposterously backed his argument—on the grounds that Mann's scientific claims have been investigated by multiple government panels, which have exonerated him.
This claim, by the way, is already falling apart. As Steven McIntyre explains, one of the examples Mann cites is a British panel that did not actually investigate Mann—its focus was on the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit, the epicenter of "Climategate"—and in its announcement of its results criticized Mann's methods as "inappropriate" and his results as "exaggerated." At the time, Mann felt so exonerated that he sent harassing e-mails to the scientist who made that remark, demanding a retraction and an apology. Mann then...
(Excerpt) Read more at dyn.realclearpolitics.com ...
Venezuela: the Left's favourite 'socialist paradise' is sliding into poverty and dictatorship
For Venezuelan Regime, the Party’s Over
Some noteworthy articles about politics, foreign or military affairs, IMHO, FReepmail me if you want on or off my list.
"Preposterously" is correct. This is not a fair court.
So this would put Mann is a bind: if he wins against Steyn, he establishes a precedent for his own loss to Curry.
I doubt that precedent counts for much in political show trials.
Mark Steyn has issued a countersuit against M Mann. (see Whatsupwiththat.com )
McIntyre has gone further and looked at the next panel investigation. No good news for Mr Mann who is seen to have “fibbed” again in his suit. (see Whatsupwiththat.com and Climateaudit.org )
S/B http://wattsupwiththat.com/ not whatsupwiththat
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/02/22/michael-manns-legal-case-caught-in-a-quote-fabrication-fib/
In another thread, someone posed the question of why Mann seems to have very deep pockets and is unafraid of the financial costs associated with losing this type of lawsuit.
There is strong evidence that Soros is behind him.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/24/fighting-the-mann/
OUTSTANDING article by Robert Tracinski. Thanks for posting; thanks for the links.
Tactics of totalitarians ALERT!
So many creepy totalitarians... so little time...
Thanks for the ping!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.