5 ms·

It seems like the main issue in the case was the completely uncalled for comparison of the climate scientist to a convicted child molester not disagreement with

It seems like the main issue in the case was the completely uncalled for comparison of the climate scientist to a convicted child molester not disagreement with the results of his research. You have a 1st Amendment right to say that the earth is flat if you want to but you don't have the right to equate a scientist who says it isn't flat to Jerry Sandusky.

johndevor 3y ago
I thought you did have the right to say anything about any public figure?
- bombcar 3y ago
  The bar for a defamation lawsuit is higher for a public figure, but it still exists. There's some precise way to say the same thing without falling afoul of it, even then.
  - Karellen 3y ago
    There's an interesting bit of complexity here though because a fair amount of Mann's status as a public figure is because of the climate-conspiracy community's singling him and his work out as a target to be attacked. If a group elevates someone to be a public figure, and uses the fact that they're a public figure to defame them in ways that would not be permitted for non-public figures, should the group really be allowed the same protections that random members of the public have talking crap about people who are incidentally famous? (I suppose it gets a bit complicated that Mann didn't retreat from the attacks, and used the notoriety thrust upon him to become a fairly prominent science communicator. Even so, giving his attackers any benefit of the doubt doesn't seem right somehow...)
- hacknewslogin 3y ago
  You can, and you won't get arrested. But if you are intentionally trying to cause harm by what you say, that's defamation. https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment
  - thaumasiotes 3y ago
    > But if you are intentionally trying to cause harm by what you say, that's defamation. Absolutely not. It can't be defamation unless it's untrue, and it also can't be defamation unless it's injurious to your target's reputation.
  - lolinder 3y ago
    If you are intentionally trying to cause harm by saying something that is provably false and succeed at causing harm, that's defamation. There are four tests and you have to prove all of them: > To prove prima facie defamation, a plaintiff must show four things: 1) a false statement purporting to be fact; 2) publication or communication of that statement to a third person; 3) fault amounting to at least negligence; and 4) damages, or some harm caused to the reputation of the person or entity who is the subject of the statement. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/defamation https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/defamation
- mandevil 3y ago
  Public figures have to prove "actual malice" (a technical legal term- don't use the casual conversation definition for those words) in order to get libel, which is a much higher bar than us regular schmoe's have to clear. But it still exists.
burkaman 3y ago
Is that true? At least based on the verdict, it seems like the factually incorrect claim that his work was "fraudulent" was punished more harshly than the child molester comparison.
- bdw5204 3y ago
  I see the "fraudulent" thing as a hyperbolic way of saying "I strongly disagree" but I'd say that is a debatable point that reasonable people could disagree over. In American political debate, it is common to throw around names like "communist" and "fascist" to refer to your political opponents but that doesn't mean most people actually think the Democrats and Republicans really are the Communists and the Fascists. I think it's dangerous rhetoric because some people might believe it and act accordingly while others might genuinely be totalitarians and stay under the radar but it's the political culture we have. The child molester comparison does provide additional context in this case that makes it much easier to interpret "fraudulent" literally rather than as hyperbole.
barbazoo 3y ago
Is the 1st amendment relevant here? I thought that was only about the state limiting your speech through law etc.
- goodSteveramos 3y ago
  Freedom of speech is not a constitutional amendment. It’s an American cultural value.
  - BobaFloutist 3y ago
    Freedom of speech is literally a constitutional amendment. It might also be an American cultural value, but it's absurd to say it's not a constitutional amendment.
    - goodSteveramos 3y ago
      The amendment is just one minor manifestation of a very fundamental cultural value. People who do not believe in freedom of speech will often excuse curtailment of it when such curtailment is not prohibited by the amendment, as freedom of speech is just that one law. So no, the amendment LITERALLY is not what freedom of speech is.
      - TheCleric 3y ago
        Yeah but one of those we have encoded into law, and the other is just vibes. What you define as a freedom of speech and what I do may be different. How should we adjudicate which one is correct in terms of how our laws are enforced?
        goodSteveramos 3y ago
        Where do you think laws come from?
        TheCleric 3y ago
bcrosby95 3y ago
Calling someone or something a fraud is different from simple disagreement.

johndevor 3y ago

I thought you did have the right to say anything about any public figure?

bombcar 3y ago
The bar for a defamation lawsuit is higher for a public figure, but it still exists. There's some precise way to say the same thing without falling afoul of it, even then.
- Karellen 3y ago
  There's an interesting bit of complexity here though because a fair amount of Mann's status as a public figure is because of the climate-conspiracy community's singling him and his work out as a target to be attacked. If a group elevates someone to be a public figure, and uses the fact that they're a public figure to defame them in ways that would not be permitted for non-public figures, should the group really be allowed the same protections that random members of the public have talking crap about people who are incidentally famous? (I suppose it gets a bit complicated that Mann didn't retreat from the attacks, and used the notoriety thrust upon him to become a fairly prominent science communicator. Even so, giving his attackers any benefit of the doubt doesn't seem right somehow...)
hacknewslogin 3y ago
You can, and you won't get arrested. But if you are intentionally trying to cause harm by what you say, that's defamation. https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment
- thaumasiotes 3y ago
  > But if you are intentionally trying to cause harm by what you say, that's defamation. Absolutely not. It can't be defamation unless it's untrue, and it also can't be defamation unless it's injurious to your target's reputation.
- lolinder 3y ago
  If you are intentionally trying to cause harm by saying something that is provably false and succeed at causing harm, that's defamation. There are four tests and you have to prove all of them: > To prove prima facie defamation, a plaintiff must show four things: 1) a false statement purporting to be fact; 2) publication or communication of that statement to a third person; 3) fault amounting to at least negligence; and 4) damages, or some harm caused to the reputation of the person or entity who is the subject of the statement. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/defamation https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/defamation
mandevil 3y ago
Public figures have to prove "actual malice" (a technical legal term- don't use the casual conversation definition for those words) in order to get libel, which is a much higher bar than us regular schmoe's have to clear. But it still exists.

burkaman 3y ago

Is that true? At least based on the verdict, it seems like the factually incorrect claim that his work was "fraudulent" was punished more harshly than the child molester comparison.

bdw5204 3y ago
I see the "fraudulent" thing as a hyperbolic way of saying "I strongly disagree" but I'd say that is a debatable point that reasonable people could disagree over. In American political debate, it is common to throw around names like "communist" and "fascist" to refer to your political opponents but that doesn't mean most people actually think the Democrats and Republicans really are the Communists and the Fascists. I think it's dangerous rhetoric because some people might believe it and act accordingly while others might genuinely be totalitarians and stay under the radar but it's the political culture we have. The child molester comparison does provide additional context in this case that makes it much easier to interpret "fraudulent" literally rather than as hyperbole.

barbazoo 3y ago

Is the 1st amendment relevant here? I thought that was only about the state limiting your speech through law etc.

goodSteveramos 3y ago
Freedom of speech is not a constitutional amendment. It’s an American cultural value.
- BobaFloutist 3y ago
  Freedom of speech is literally a constitutional amendment. It might also be an American cultural value, but it's absurd to say it's not a constitutional amendment.
  - goodSteveramos 3y ago
    The amendment is just one minor manifestation of a very fundamental cultural value. People who do not believe in freedom of speech will often excuse curtailment of it when such curtailment is not prohibited by the amendment, as freedom of speech is just that one law. So no, the amendment LITERALLY is not what freedom of speech is.
    - TheCleric 3y ago
      Yeah but one of those we have encoded into law, and the other is just vibes. What you define as a freedom of speech and what I do may be different. How should we adjudicate which one is correct in terms of how our laws are enforced?
      - goodSteveramos 3y ago
        Where do you think laws come from?
        TheCleric 3y ago

bcrosby95 3y ago

Calling someone or something a fraud is different from simple disagreement.