3 ms·

Edit: not stated at all in this, but which my main point, is that the mistake was that the jury messed up on the compensatory damages, not that the punitive dam

Edit: not stated at all in this, but which my main point, is that the mistake was that the jury messed up on the compensatory damages, not that the punitive damages are wrong. Coffee is still kicking in... Ok, so active harassment of a person, by a think tank, perpetuating lies and making comparisons to pedophilia is "no damages"? This spurred on harassment including hacking of email contents. What is possibly "icky" about a defamation result, other than the jury didn't find higher compensatory damages? If it's OK in our society for individuals to be attacked with lies like this, with money undirected through think tanks, are you OK with your professional life and personal life being intruded in this way with lies? Really?

listless 3y ago
I think this verdict is both good and bad. We've been dragging people through the mud over nothing now for a while and celebrating it. Society is sick. It needs to stop. At the same time, I worry about a "chilling" effect on anyone who questions "the science". Whether you like them or not, we need people who question climate science. We need people who question vaccines. Yes, they are annoying and in this case they went way, way too far.
- wolrah 3y ago
  > At the same time, I worry about a "chilling" effect on anyone who questions "the science". In what way? This has nothing to do with disagreement, it's about defamation. Claiming that a researcher was intentionally and fraudulently manipulating data is an entirely different ballpark from disagreeing with their methods or conclusions. The various groups who have decided as a matter of dogma that their pet theory is correct therefore all of science must be a conspiracy to cover up the truth will of course present things as if this verdict threatens any dissent, but that's simply nonsense. > Whether you like them or not, we need people who question climate science. We need people who question vaccines. Yes, they are annoying and in this case they went way, way too far. We need people who question science *in good faith*. People who disagree because they have an alternative that also fits the known facts, or because they see valid weaknesses in the methods used to come to the conclusion. Scientific progress is built on questioning things. We do not need people like the defendants in this case who have decided that climate change is an evil liberal conspiracy to empower governments. We do not need people like Jenny McCarthy, RFK Jr., etc. who have decided that all the different often entirely unrelated kinds of vaccines in the world are somehow part of the same conspiracy to do...something. These people are not adding to the discussion, they're not contributing to progress, they're at best getting in the way and in a lot of cases trying their hardest to push things back. I could go on and on. Creationists, flat-earthers, moon landing deniers, etc. will all scream about how the scientific establishment is silencing them for questioning things, but the reality is they're just wrong, annoying, and deserve no credit for anything because they're not doing it in good faith. They're not trying to find the truth, they've decided they know the truth and are hostile to anything else.
lolinder 3y ago
I didn't say I like what Steyn and co said or that they should be allowed to say it, but the process matters. In the US we're supposed to have a very high threshold for what kinds of speech can be punished. For defamation, it is required that the plaintiff be able to show that there were damages. The jury's awarding of $1 shows that they were not persuaded that there was any financial damage done to Mann by this think tank's actions. Their subsequent award of $1m in punitive damages shows that they were persuaded that Steyn's speech deserved to be punished. That second part is what I'm not comfortable with. If they awarded him $1m in compensatory damages that would be one thing, but choosing the absolute minimum and then levying a huge punitive fine is a scary result for anyone who values the speech protections we have in the US.
- saveferris 3y ago
  You can look at it like this... They jury was concerned about the speech by the think tank. They don't want anyone else to have to suffer through it. The plaintiff though didn't have actual monetary damages from it, but you and me might have. The jury is signaling, stronly, that this type of speech isn't allowed and should be punished. The fact that it happened to someone who wasn't monetarily harmed much by it isn't relevant but let's put a high bar out there to deter anyone else from this type of speech towards people who could be damaged. The way the laws work it is really the only thing they could do if they believed the defendant's speech is harmful. That's how I read into the monetary awards...
  - lolinder 3y ago
    I know that's what the jury thought they were doing, but that isn't actually constitutional in the US. Juries are not empowered to decide whether speech isn't allowed and should be punished, they're empowered to decide whether speech is defamation and how much harm was done by said defamation. Here, they found there was ~no harm done. That means that, constitutionally, they are unable to levy a substantial fine.
torstenvl 3y ago
Harassment was not at issue. The jury found malice because they had to if they wanted to impose any damages at all. For a public figure—such as a public employee in the news—the "actual malice" standard applies in defamation cases in the U.S. I'm glossing over a bit of nuance regarding limited public figures, without which I'm not sure this would apply to Mann (I'm not a 1A practitioner), but Wikipedia does a pretty good job of discussing the cornerstone case and further developments, for those interested. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._Sullivan https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._Sulliv...
mcmcmc 3y ago
The issue is probably more to do with how injury is defined in the context of defamation law. Actual damages require that they prove the victim lost something tangible as a direct result of the defamation. It's not hard to argue that he lost out on the grant funding due to the previous leak or some other outside factor. The decision is more like saying the original article was a marginal factor in the specific claim they made in the lawsuit but the egregiousness of the defamation was severe enough to warrant further damages.
IncreasePosts 3y ago
Yes, they made a super edgy comparison to pedophilia, but it is pretty clear they aren't saying Mann is a pedophile. In fact, they even say he doesn't molest children: > Mann could be said to be the Jerry Sandusky of climate science, except for instead of molesting children, he has molested and tortured data
- enterprise_cog 3y ago
  The comparison is them saying it. You don’t evoke a thought like that without wanting to imply something.
  - kyleee 3y ago
    Talk about tortured logic…

listless 3y ago

I think this verdict is both good and bad. We've been dragging people through the mud over nothing now for a while and celebrating it. Society is sick. It needs to stop. At the same time, I worry about a "chilling" effect on anyone who questions "the science". Whether you like them or not, we need people who question climate science. We need people who question vaccines. Yes, they are annoying and in this case they went way, way too far.

wolrah 3y ago
> At the same time, I worry about a "chilling" effect on anyone who questions "the science". In what way? This has nothing to do with disagreement, it's about defamation. Claiming that a researcher was intentionally and fraudulently manipulating data is an entirely different ballpark from disagreeing with their methods or conclusions. The various groups who have decided as a matter of dogma that their pet theory is correct therefore all of science must be a conspiracy to cover up the truth will of course present things as if this verdict threatens any dissent, but that's simply nonsense. > Whether you like them or not, we need people who question climate science. We need people who question vaccines. Yes, they are annoying and in this case they went way, way too far. We need people who question science *in good faith*. People who disagree because they have an alternative that also fits the known facts, or because they see valid weaknesses in the methods used to come to the conclusion. Scientific progress is built on questioning things. We do not need people like the defendants in this case who have decided that climate change is an evil liberal conspiracy to empower governments. We do not need people like Jenny McCarthy, RFK Jr., etc. who have decided that all the different often entirely unrelated kinds of vaccines in the world are somehow part of the same conspiracy to do...something. These people are not adding to the discussion, they're not contributing to progress, they're at best getting in the way and in a lot of cases trying their hardest to push things back. I could go on and on. Creationists, flat-earthers, moon landing deniers, etc. will all scream about how the scientific establishment is silencing them for questioning things, but the reality is they're just wrong, annoying, and deserve no credit for anything because they're not doing it in good faith. They're not trying to find the truth, they've decided they know the truth and are hostile to anything else.

lolinder 3y ago

I didn't say I like what Steyn and co said or that they should be allowed to say it, but the process matters. In the US we're supposed to have a very high threshold for what kinds of speech can be punished. For defamation, it is required that the plaintiff be able to show that there were damages. The jury's awarding of $1 shows that they were not persuaded that there was any financial damage done to Mann by this think tank's actions. Their subsequent award of $1m in punitive damages shows that they were persuaded that Steyn's speech deserved to be punished. That second part is what I'm not comfortable with. If they awarded him $1m in compensatory damages that would be one thing, but choosing the absolute minimum and then levying a huge punitive fine is a scary result for anyone who values the speech protections we have in the US.

saveferris 3y ago
You can look at it like this... They jury was concerned about the speech by the think tank. They don't want anyone else to have to suffer through it. The plaintiff though didn't have actual monetary damages from it, but you and me might have. The jury is signaling, stronly, that this type of speech isn't allowed and should be punished. The fact that it happened to someone who wasn't monetarily harmed much by it isn't relevant but let's put a high bar out there to deter anyone else from this type of speech towards people who could be damaged. The way the laws work it is really the only thing they could do if they believed the defendant's speech is harmful. That's how I read into the monetary awards...
- lolinder 3y ago
  I know that's what the jury thought they were doing, but that isn't actually constitutional in the US. Juries are not empowered to decide whether speech isn't allowed and should be punished, they're empowered to decide whether speech is defamation and how much harm was done by said defamation. Here, they found there was ~no harm done. That means that, constitutionally, they are unable to levy a substantial fine.

torstenvl 3y ago

Harassment was not at issue. The jury found malice because they had to if they wanted to impose any damages at all. For a public figure—such as a public employee in the news—the "actual malice" standard applies in defamation cases in the U.S. I'm glossing over a bit of nuance regarding limited public figures, without which I'm not sure this would apply to Mann (I'm not a 1A practitioner), but Wikipedia does a pretty good job of discussing the cornerstone case and further developments, for those interested. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._Sullivan https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._Sulliv...

mcmcmc 3y ago

The issue is probably more to do with how injury is defined in the context of defamation law. Actual damages require that they prove the victim lost something tangible as a direct result of the defamation. It's not hard to argue that he lost out on the grant funding due to the previous leak or some other outside factor. The decision is more like saying the original article was a marginal factor in the specific claim they made in the lawsuit but the egregiousness of the defamation was severe enough to warrant further damages.

IncreasePosts 3y ago

Yes, they made a super edgy comparison to pedophilia, but it is pretty clear they aren't saying Mann is a pedophile. In fact, they even say he doesn't molest children: > Mann could be said to be the Jerry Sandusky of climate science, except for instead of molesting children, he has molested and tortured data

enterprise_cog 3y ago
The comparison is them saying it. You don’t evoke a thought like that without wanting to imply something.
- kyleee 3y ago
  Talk about tortured logic…