Free Speech in Abeyance
Excerpt: At stake in this case are nothing less than two of the core guarantees that undergird American life. The first is the promise that all people may engage in robust political debate without fear of retribution from the sensitive and the malicious. The second is the promise that when legal disputes do arise, they will be resolved in a timely manner — before, not after, the targeted party has been bled of precious time and resources. Thus far in National Review Inc. v. Michael E. Mann, neither of these guarantees has been upheld. We are now seven years into this saga, and there remains no end in sight. On the case rolls — a Jarndyce and Jarndyce for the 21st century. Justice Alito notes that “in recent years, the Court has made a point of vigilantly enforcing the Free Speech Clause even when the speech at issue made no great contribution to public debate.” And so it should. But one would expect that a Court that takes the time to superintend the marginal cases would have time for the foundational cases, too. And make no mistake: This is a foundational case. Aware of what is at risk here, a host of media organizations from across the entire political spectrum have filed amicus curiae briefs in support of National Review. We may not agree with the Washington Post, Time Inc., the ACLU, and the Cato Institute on everything — or, often, on much — but on this we all speak as one. [I added emphasis. I started paying attention to the Climate Change Hysteria back in the late 1990s. We all watched as the Mann Hockey Stick graph was finally analyzed and demolished by multiple expert climate-related scientists. We all watched as the “Climate-gate emails” were published. And, we all saw that few minds were open to consider the objective facts. To this day, Dr. Mann refuses to let anyone see the source materials he bases his work on, claiming they are his “trade secrets.” Just as a reminder, real science isn’t done that way. If no one can duplicate your results, you HAVEN’T PROVEN ANYTHING, you’ve only asserted it. By allowing Mann to sue for damages to his reputation–that HE CAUSED by failing to provide that basic information is a travesty. Please read the whole editorial at National Review; it isn’t very long. I’m about as broke as any other old fart, but I will be sending them $5 or $10 to help pay for their on-going legal expenses. I urge you to do the same. Ron P.]
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment