“National Review gets grief, some of it justified, from around here. But in this they are on the side of the angels.”
I disagree. My recollection was NR and Stein had a disagreement over how to defend themselves. Stein wanted to go after the underlying data and prove the falsehood. NR wanted the easier win based on free speech, If NR wins here it doesn’t disprove Mann’s analysis. Stein was right. NR wrong. In Canada, Mann was ordered to turn over the data and didn’t and lost. That ruling will get buried in the press if NR wins here. I hope the Supreme Court rules against NR and has to go after the facts of the case. Get the data and prove Mann is wrong. If NR wins now it will not be vindication. It will be a Pyrrhic victory.
I disagree, NR was sued for stating an opinion, they are defending their right to an opinion.
If they started arguing the facts, it undermines their basic argument that opinion cannot be libelous. This case is about anyone’s protected right to publish their opinion, as long as it is clear that it is an opinion.
It would be libelous to purport, as fact without evidence, “Joe Biden molests puppies”. But it is and should be protected to state without having to provide evidence “I think Joe Biden likes to molest puppies,” or “puppies should be fearful if Joe Biden enters the room.”