Posted on 01/25/2014 9:03:37 AM PST by Valpal1
This column originally appeared in the January 27th print edition of National Review:
America is a land of acronyms, and, useful as they are, acronyms can quickly curdle into jargon. SLAPP stands for "strategic lawsuit against public participation" — i.e., using legal action to cow an opponent into silence, and withdrawal from the public square. It was coined in the Eighties by Penelope Canan and George W. Pring at the University of Denver, and in the Nineties they turned it into a book: SLAPPs: Getting Sued for Speaking Out. And it proved so influential that by the Oughts various jurisdictions were passing "anti-SLAPP laws," to the point where they're now on the books of 28 states, one territory, and the District of Columbia. The purpose of an anti-SLAPP law is to get such suits quickly dismissed. So, when you find yourself the target of one and tootle along to see your lawyer, your first conversations are all anti-SLAPP this and anti-SLAPP that.
That's what happened to me and this magazine. In a post at NATIONAL REVIEW's website, I mocked Dr. Michael Mann, the celebrated global warm-monger, and his "hockey stick," the most famous of all the late-Nineties global-warming climate models to which dull, uncooperative 21st-century reality has failed to live up. So he sued. We then filed an anti-SLAPP motion to dismiss. Our first court date was January 20th last year. That's to say, we are now entering the second year of the anti-SLAPP phase of our case. So a law specifically designed to expedite a resolution of the matter has become just another bit of protracted, interminable, lethargic procedural ping-pong in an already sclerotic legal system.
(Excerpt) Read more at steynonline.com ...
Michael Mann should go down.
It seems to me that when Mann started advocating political solutions to global warming that he inserted himself in to politics and left private life behind. He should have only very limited protection from any slander just as any public figure does.
I’m new to this issue but am familiar with Mark’s battle in Canada.
It seems that he has been left to do the heavy lifting by himself on this case. Mark Steyn stands on principle and refuses to be bullied into silence by the dollars required.
I’m curious about who is funding the legal efforts of Dr. Mann ?
I've wondered that too. The biggies behind the global warming scam are Rockefeller (Exxon Mobil), the Pew Charitable Trusts (Sunoco), and the British Royals (BP), major stockholders all. They each have pipelines for their funding to keep from getting caught, Tides Foundation being the prime example.
You might want to include the latest update on this case. There was a decision this past Wednesday, Jan 22. Per the Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/01/23/mann-v-steyn-mann-wins-round-two/):
“On Wednesday, Judge Frederick Weisberg handed climate scientist Michael Mann a potentially significant victory in his defamation suit against Mark Steyn, National Review, Rand Simberg, and the Competitive Enterprise Institute. In a relatively brief order, Judge Weisberg denied the defendants’ motions to dismiss and lifted the stay on discovery in the suit.”
Read more at the link.
Steyn ping.
Mark Steyn ping.
Freepmail me, if you want on or off the Mark Steyn ping list.
Thanks for the ping Slings and Arrows.
——we are now entering the second year of the anti-SLAPP phase of our case-——
The purpose of law in America is not to protect the innocent from claims of guilt. The purpose of the law is to enrich lawyers.
Those that accuse and those that defend are all guilty of unjust enrichment
This highlights what RINO GOPe cowards are running the NR today, that they lost Steyn over free speech.
No doubt that has a lot to do with the massive number of Liberal lawyers and Liberal judges infesting this once fair land. They are eating out our substance as well as our freedom and liberty and making a nice living doing so.
I totally agree.Everytime I read anything by Mark, with his sui generis trademark withering wit,backed by real facts and historical perspective,his effortlessly informed sarcasm, I think he’s the smartest man writing on
political matters in America. Combine his brains with his anger, and that’s an explosive combination. Too bad there’s only one of him.
Ah, Mark, we love your eloquence!!! I sit in awe.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.