Climatologist Michael Mann wins defamation case: what it means for scientists

Still does not excuse the focus and quoting of one section whilst ignoring the other

 

I think the main point was to stop the online threats and bullying a point many here seem to be quite OK with

 

OK, I give. What on earth are you talking about?

 

What on-line threats?

 

Damages of $1. Punitive damages capped at $10, jury's verdict notwithstanding.

 

That is false.

 

Damages of $1. Punitive damages capped at $10, jury's verdict notwithstanding.

 

The ones climate scientists have been dealing with for decades now. One of the worst was

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/jun/06/australia-climate-scientists-death-threats

One of the worst was Marc Moreno who openly doxxed scientists

 

Most bullying and on-line threats are directed at skeptics.

 

We shall see

 

Prove it! I have links showing that scientists have had to go into protective custody - have you similar proof to back YOUR allegations?

 

You just have to spend some time on these forums to see how nutty progressives can be.

 

Have you been threatened physically? Have you been doxxed?

 

Read the nature article posted.

 

No. But the general attitude here is that MAGAs should be euthanized.

Fortunately I live in a 2nd Amendment Sanctuary. Idiots like that wouldn't dare come out here.

Unlike the areas where, say, Supreme Court Justices and their families live.

 

"The Constitution is what the judges say it is." --Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes

 

And as noted to you several times now, US damages caps will not allow for that to have to be paid.

 

Then he should be fine not getting any.

 

Mann's lawyer sought damages.
Trial Of Mann v. Steyn, Part V: Jury Instructions And Closing Argument
February 08, 2024/ Francis Menton

• Next, Williams said that his client had no need to prove monetary harm, but the jury could award damages based on reputational or emotional harm. The problem with this one is that he had no evidence to cite as to the alleged reputational or emotional harm.
  
  
• And finally, Williams made a pitch for punitive damages. In his pitch, Williams started to say “These attacks on climate scientists have to stop.” Again, there was an immediate objection, again sustained. In effect, Williams was arguing for abrogation of the First Amendment as to the climate debate. I find it outrageous. But will the jury?
  

 

Slander is not a first amendment right. Nor is libel.

 

Happens every day, every time the word "denier" is used.

 

I wouldn't get my hopes up.

Einstein made some remark implying stupidity was infinite.

This should reduce the instances of prominent morons publicly sticking their feet into their mouths far enough to come out their asses.

Only One million? Should have been Ten.
A million ain't what it used to be.

 

That was not the question. You said Mann did not seek damages. His lawyer refuted you.

 

Maybe because EVERY report in the mainstream media already bruited the $1M punitive damages award, but not one of them mentioned the fact that actual damages were $1, and the $1M award was absurd and certain to be overturned.

 

Good! You'll have no problem depositing that into my Bitcoin account.