Posted on 03/28/2025 8:56:02 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
What a difference a year makes.
A year ago, Michael Mann was riding high after winning his 12-year-old lawsuit against journalist and pundit Mark Steyn and Rand Simberg over comments sharply critical of Mann’s famed “hockey stick” graph. That graph purported to demonstrate a sharp rise in global temperature following industrialization, supposedly caused by man-made greenhouse gas emissions. The offending comments were by Steyn in a National Review blog post and by Simberg in a Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) blog post.
Mann brought suit against all four, but in 2021 National Review and CEI won “summary judgment” (a peculiar term after nine years of litigation) on the grounds that Steyn and Simberg were “independent contractors,” not employees, and they bore no responsibility for the content of the posts.
In February 2024, a District of Columbia jury ordered Steyn to pay one million dollars in punitive damages to Mann. (Although Steyn’s offense was chiefly to have quoted Simberg, the jury assessed only $1,000 for the latter.)
If Mann was joyous, Steyn was depressed and enraged. He had spent twelve years in what he described as the “dank, fetid, clogged septic tank of DC justice.” The case had ruined his finances and, as he often stated, his life. And at the end, when it finally came to trial, far from being vindicated, he had been slammed with a huge penalty with the potential to destroy the rest of his life, already precarious in the wake of one massive and several lesser heart attacks. An appeal would entail more years and huge additional legal costs.
Buoyed by the verdict, Mann promised to bring National Review and CEI (as institutions, presumably with deeper pockets) back into the case. He said he believed that the summary judgment had been “wrongly decided.” Mann announced, “They’re next.”
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
One year later, the tables had turned. To understand what happened, it is necessary to know something of the legal underpinnings of the case.
There is no doubt that Marc’s health issues stem from this.
RE: Steyn has said repeatedly that the process is the punishment.
*THAT* is the point. If you’re not as rich and famous as Trump or Elon Musk, the intent will be to bankrupt you while you try to defend yourself.
The punitive damages were so obviously wrong they should have been lowered within a day after the jury verdict. The wheels of justice move slowly.
My dad was tortured in his last few years of life on Earth from a bogus lawsuit that was dismissed after enough money had been spent, apparently. The dismissal was granted since the plaintiff described his company as a corporation, and he had never filed. This was obvious from Day 1. Why did it take years to get it dismissed? It literally took years off my dad’s life.
If you love having Mark Steyn in our world, you can support him by subscribing to the Mark Steyn Club:
https://www.steynonline.com/club/
This article is very hard to follow.
I’m not clear on what the injury was. Was it comparing him to Jerry Sandusky? Or was it saying the hocky graph chart was wrong?
Also I don’t clearly understand how all of the sudden he went from losing to being able to get legal fees. It appears a few steps are missing in this article...or I just missed it.
This is why we need loser pay on all lawsuits.
Here is the issue in a nutshell:
In 2012, Mark Steyn faced a defamation lawsuit brought by climate scientist Michael Mann. The case stemmed from blog posts written by Steyn and Rand Simberg that criticized Mann’s research, particularly his “hockey stick” graph, which depicts historical temperature trends and supports the theory of human-induced climate change. The posts accused Mann of misconduct and data manipulation, using strong language that Mann argued was defamatory.
The jury ultimately ruled in Mann’s favor, awarding nominal compensatory damages of $1 but imposing significant punitive damages—$1 million against Steyn and $1,000 against Simberg. The case highlighted tensions between free speech and defamation laws, especially in the context of scientific debate and public discourse.
While the case initially moved forward, parts of it were dismissed over time. For example, the National Review and the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), co-defendants in the case, successfully had the claims against them dismissed under D.C.’s Anti-SLAPP law, which protects free speech on matters of public concern.
However, the claims against Mark Steyn and Rand Simberg proceeded, and a jury eventually ruled in favor of Michael Mann, awarding nominal compensatory damages and punitive damages. The punitive damages were later significantly reduced by a judge. By how much?
Well, The punitive damages awarded against Mark Steyn in the defamation lawsuit brought by Michael Mann were significantly reduced from $1 million to $5,000. This reduction was based on constitutional concerns about excessive civil punishment under the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.
It took over 10 years ( 13 years ) for this decision to come down.
The case has been notable for its lengthy legal proceedings and its implications for free speech and defamation law.
Mark Steyn, as you know, is a favorite radio host substitute for Rush Limbaugh when he goes on a break. Steyn is well known in conservative circles for his astute observations and sharp wit. And oh yeah, he grew up in Canada 🍁 🇨🇦
Indeed. He is in my prayers every day.
Thanks for your summary.
“Mark Steyn, as you know, is a favorite radio host substitute for Rush Limbaugh when he goes on a break...”
Sadly Rush has been on ‘break’ for four years...
Wow, so Mann’s argument was that he is just a terrible scientist, but not corrupt. Kind of an amazing admission, I guess.
There was no proven injury...but it was a left wing DC jury that new Steyn was a guest host for Rush Limbaugh.
<>READ THE ARTICLE<>
At FreeRepublic? LOL.
I worked with Simberg over 40 years ago. Brilliant dude.
Michael Mann has been pushing climate fraud for decades.
He should have been prosecuted
Well, watch the play by play on the case.
Climate Change On trial.
The two journalists did a magnificent job !
https://www.iheart.com/podcast/269-climate-change-on-trial-126802022/
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.