9 thoughts on “My Lawsuit”

  1. Climate policy activists have generally supported Mann’s litigation, but they may come to regret this view.

    Why? When leftist judicial philosophy is one of unequal application of the law, why would they worry? They want debate chilled and know that criticizing a ruling over the actions of police officers would never be treated the same way. No one will be burning down any cities over this case.

    FWIW, I also have profound disagreements with the CEI on the threat posed by climate change and the appropriate policy response to this threat.

    It’s funny how this religion always requires flagellation and enthusiastic prostration.

    I was wondering what the status in the case was. Thanks for the (non)update.

  2. Regardless of the outcome here: I believe this justifies our honoring Rand as the internet’s king of snark?

    Perhaps Mann should have himself charged with defaming himself?

  3. Strange to think that if Michael Mann had not been employed by people who colluded in the rape of children, this whole kerfuffle never would have happened.

  4. Hi,

    The particular critic who believes both that Mann is a fraud and Simberg deserves to be sued for defamation (allow me some weasel words here) frequently exhibits on-line behaviors which I believe many people might infer to provide evidence of a tendency toward the excessive literalism of a mild mental disorder very much like autism. If that is the case, then such a literal mind may be incapable of appreciating why “the Sandusky of” metaphor fails to be legally defamatory.

    1. There were a lot of contradictions in the piece. I really doubt anything presented to the court could escape the cherry picking attack. That is what you do, pick and choose what to present the court. It isn’t about doing a study to show all the ways Mann is a fraud and if that did happen, it wouldn’t satisfy Mann’s defenders or even the author, if you read his comments.

      The author’s only complaint is that he didn’t like the manner in which freedom of speech was exercised so any punishment by process is just, but freedom of speech exists to protect manners of speech people don’t like. Its a bit like how people say they dislike a crime so much that people deserve what they get in jail, despite their extrajudicial punishment not being legal.

      The author summarizes his own post quite nicely in the 2nd comment, Is it virtue signaling where you want to make sure everyone knows you’re on their side?

Comments are closed.