“The hope for some semblance of sanity is that the judge in this case will overturn the jury’s verdict, based on the fact that it was in stark contrast to the evidence presented.”
As readers know, I recently posted a detailed discussion of the Mann v Steyn lawsuit, and asserted that ALL of our rights were being debated. The jury’s verdict was rendered yesterday — and it was disturbing.
I’m not an attorney, but the two fundamental issues appeared to be: 1) Does a person have the right to publicly express their opinion (right or wrong) about a national matter? and 2) Does a person have the right to publicly express an opinion that is based on reasonable scientific evidence, but differs from what is currently politically correct? Apparently no to both!
Put another way, can a public figure be awarded damages when their work product is publicly criticized (based on scientific evidence), but they are unable to show material damages directly related to such criticism? Apparently yes!
Since I’m not a lawyer, please read a good synopsis of this jarring jury verdict by a very competent attorney who was closely following this case. And when I say competent, I’m referring to the fact that he is not only legally knowledgeable, but he is very informed about the climate matter as well.
That the jury came to such conclusions could well be interpreted as yet another sign that our education system has been effectively hijacked by the Left, as we are producing citizens who not only lack critical thinking skills, but give unquestioned deference to authority — irrespective of any contrary evidence presented.
The hope for some semblance of sanity is that the judge in this case will overturn the jury’s verdict, based on the fact that it was in stark contrast to the evidence presented.
—————
Some other good commentaries as of this writing:
Mark Steyn’s website (which has a collection of reports on the trial)
Mark Steyn and the One Million Dollar Undamaged Mann
How fossils fuelled the GDP hockey stick
Nothing Can Save ‘Climate Science’, Not Now
Mark Steyn Ordered by Jury to Pay Former Penn State ‘Climate Scientist’ $1M in Defamation Case
Thoughts on the $1 million Mark Steyn verdict
DC Jury Finds Climate Skeptics Defamed ‘Hockey Stick’ Model Creator — 12 Years Later
Constitutional Limits on Punitive Damages Awards: An Analysis of Supreme Court Precedent
—————————
Here are other materials by this scientist that you might find interesting:
My Substack Commentaries for 2023 (arranged by topic)
Check out the chronological Archives of my entire Critical Thinking substack.
WiseEnergy.org: discusses the Science (or lack thereof) behind our energy options.
C19Science.info: covers the lack of genuine Science behind our COVID-19 policies.
Election-Integrity.info: multiple major reports on the election integrity issue.
This post is reproduced from Media Balance Newsletter, a free, twice-a-month newsletter that covers what the mainstream media does not do, on issues from COVID to climate, elections to education, renewables to religion, etc. The Newsletter’s 2023 archive is here.
The jury’s completely irrational and illogical decision is good reason to be concerned about the future of the U.S.