I haven’t read the whole thing yet, but Charles Cooke has a long essay in the latest issue of National Review:
The law of defamation is useful for awarding civil damages against those who peddle outright lies — that is, against those who do real damage to a person’s reputation by abusing plain facts that can be easily verified and adjudicated in court. In such cases as it is claimed that Jones beats his wife or Smith is a drug addict, the relevant facts fall easily within the competence of a civil tribunal, and litigation does not threaten to impose a chill on the public discourse. But when a plaintiff files a libel suit involving a matter of political or scientific controversy, the calculus is quite different indeed. When the merits of a libel claim implicate contested questions of science and statistical methodology, judges and juries are so ill suited to pronounce a verdict that allowing the public authority to have the final say is inconsistent with the very concept of free inquiry. The whole point of the scientific enterprise is to resolve controversies through open debate, not through the final decree of government officials.
Even where no verdict of guilt is ultimately pronounced, allowing litigation over criticisms of the validity of scientific research has a deleterious effect on the public discourse. It prompts critics to trim their sails in order to avoid the cost and headache of a lawsuit, thus establishing a climate of fear and quiet rather than of boisterous agitation and open discussion. Hanging the prospect of punishment above the heads of participants in scientific disputes serves not to yield greater accuracy but to invite censorship, the toning down of rhetoric, and the avoidance of hyperbole — of anything, indeed, that could invite a libel complaint. Which is to say that it shuts up the dissenters.
Which is, of course, the entire point.
I haven’t read the whole thing either, but from what I have read Cooke appears to be under the impression that the case is about the controversy over the validity of the scientific conclusions, whereas the judges summations I’ve read makes it clear that the case is over whether or not Mann committed acts of scientific fraud, which is what Simberg and Steyn have allegedly accused him of.
Apparently you have a reading comprehension problem, plus, no judge has said that “the case is over.”
“the case is over.”
I see you’re practicing the politicians art of quoting out of context .
You must be feeling very proud of yourself.
Well done.
I’m sorry I misread it, but if you meant “the case is about,” you should have written that.
It appears Andrew would have been better served by writing “… the case is about …” both times.
No, libel cases aren’t about accusations of fraud, they’re about accusations of libel. That’s why they call them libel cases instead of fraud cases. Lawyers are smart like that.
You mean the case is over whether or not Mann was libeled by allegedly being accused of scientific fraud?
Closer. For you to believe that it was libel, you have to believe that Rand actually thinks Mann’s statistical techniques were sound and that Mann is actually honest and open with this data a methods, which is about as likely as him having a secret man-crush on dn guy.
If Jerry Sandusky had a raw set of football stats, he wouldn’t let Mann within 500 feet of it, because when Mann whips out his wholly unnatural statistical methods (which have drawn the ire of the statisticians who looked at his work). his adjustments, his inversions of time-series data, and the way he mixes data sets in obscene ways,you’d end up with Ohio beating Penn State in the 1934 Sugar Bowl by 3 to -1.
The Judges haven’t seen it that way, and ultimately they are the ones who count.
I’d suggest you read either Judge Greene or Weisberg’s opinion memo for dismissing
the SLAPP action.
The Judges haven’t seen it that way, and ultimately they are the ones who count.
Not if they’re reversed on appeal, you moron.