The liberal lawfare strategy may put an end to free speech. Leftist apparatchik Michael Mann — best known for his involvement in fabricating Al Gore’s false hockey stick graph and in the ClimateGate scandal — sued Rand Simberg and Mark Steyn for publicly observing that he is a fraud. Yesterday, a jury in the District of Corruption commanded Steyn to pay $1 in compensatory damages for the suffering Mann allegedly endured — and $1 million in punitive damages, essentially for committing heresy against left-wing climate doctrine.
Usually the process is the punishment. The esteemed countermoonbat Steyn was dragged through the courts for 12 years as punishment for criticizing the liberal establishmentarian Mann. But that was insufficient to silence debunkers of the global warming hoax, so now a $1 million fine has been added.
According to the sort of jury you might expect in DC, this is worth $1 million:
The case involved blog posts that Simberg and Steyn made over a decade ago criticizing Mann’s science and his “hockey stick” graph, which shows global temperature spiking over the last century or so. In his post on CEI’s website, Simberg accused Mann of molesting and torturing his data, and made a crude analogy between Penn State University’s investigation of Mann and its investigation of Jerry Sandusky, the school’s former football coach convicted of child molestation.
In his post on the Corner section of National Review‘s website, Steyn distanced himself from the Sandusky analogy, but added that “he has a point.” He wrote that “Mann was the man behind the fraudulent climate-change ‘hockey-stick’ graph, the very ringmaster of the tree-ring circus,” a reference to climate data obtained through the analysis of tree rings.
Displaying the mind-numbing hypocrisy that characterizes moonbats, the malicious, spiteful, vengeful, and obviously left-wing jury proclaimed that this constituted “maliciousness, spite, ill will, vengeance, or deliberate intent” to harm Mann.
Freed from the restraints that self-respect imposes on nonliberals, Mann employed crybully tactics, whimpering that Steyn’s criticism affected him emotionally and that someone gave him a “mean look that expressed revulsion” at a supermarket, which he somehow linked to Steyn.
Lest anyone doubt that the point of this was to silence political speech,
The verdict comes after Mann’s lawyer, John Williams, was admonished by the court for telling the jury during closing arguments that they could award Mann punitive damages to not only “punish” Steyn and Simberg, but to “serve as an example to prevent others from acting in the same [manner].”
“These attacks on climate science have to stop, and now you have the opportunity,” Williams said, receiving objections from both Steyn and Simberg’s attorney.
“Climate science” is Liberalese for the hoax Mann doctored data to prop up.
The Supreme Court will presumably overrule this ham-fisted attack on the First Amendment. But if Democrats remain in power long enough to appoint more Sonia Sotomayor types, the court will no longer serve as a brake on leftist tyranny.
For the conspicuously odious Michael Mann, the suit was personal:
In a 2012 email, Mann wrote that he hoped to use the lawsuit to “ruin” Steyn, whom he referred to as a “pathetic excuse for a human being.” Mann also wrote in private exchanges that there was “a possibility that I can ruin National Review,” which he referred to as “this filthy organization,” a “threat to our children,” and beholden to “greedy fat cat corporate masters.”
National Review — a platform for speech Mann wants silenced — was originally targeted too but ended up getting dropped from the suit.
Look at the bright side. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) wants people thrown in prison for disputing global warming doctrine. At least we aren’t there yet — though we probably will be soon if Democrats prevail in November.
On a tip from Varla.
