Stein wanted to go toe to toe on the facts. In Canada they did and conservatives won because Mann didn’t produce the data. Winning on “I am a moron but I have the right to express my opinion.” is not a win for conservatives. Let the left win those battles.
“Winning on “I am a moron but I have the right to express my opinion.” is not a win for conservatives. Let the left win those battles.”
However, the 1st Amendment protects several God-given rights from infringement by any level of government (well, just the Feds, but all governments when the 14th Amendment is applied, as has already been done WRT free speech). The 1st protects, among other things, anyone’s right to express their opinion about any subject, regardless of how many people (or even if EVERY SINGLE OTHER PERSON) disagrees. That right is incredibly worthy of protection, and since the NR published an OPINION piece that criticized Mann, that is the only basis on which they should be fighting against his suit. Had NR stated facts (such as, “Mann knowingly fudged the data on the climate to come up with his “hockey stick” and to gain funding for climate studies”), well THEN an argument over the fact vs. fiction of “climate science” would be in order.
The most important thing that they teach people in law school is to correctly identify the issue at hand. EVERYTHING else is secondary. With respect, you are missing the issue. You issue - fighting the climate nazis and their corrupt data - is a very worthy one with which I wholeheartedly agree. But it isn’t the issue in this particular case.