Judge Says Websites Must Face Defamation Lawsuit For Calling Climate Scientist A ‘Fraud’

[ashling]

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/01/24/3205111/mann-defamation-lawsuit/



A judge for the D.C. Superior Court on Thursday refused to let libertarian think tank Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) and conservative news site National Review off the hook from a defamation lawsuit brought by climatologist Michael Mann, saying the sites’ musings about the accuracy of Mann’s research may not be protected by the First Amendment.

Mann had sued the outlets in 2012, claiming they published defamatory articles accusing him of academic fraud and comparing him to a convicted child molester, former Penn State assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky. Specifically, Mann alleged that CEI published — and then National Review republished — an article calling Mann “the Jerry Sandusky of climate science, except that instead of molesting children, he has molested and tortured data in the service of politicized science that could have dire economic consequences for the nation and planet.”

Judge Frederick H. Weisberg on Thursday ruled that while “opinions and rhetorical hyperbole” are protected speech under the First Amendment, accusing a climate scientist of lying about his seemingly factual data is serious enough to warrant defamation claims.
“The allegedly defamatory aspect of this sentence is the statement that plaintiff ‘molested and tortured data,’ not the rhetorically hyperbolic comparison to convicted child molester Jerry Sandusky,” Judge Weisberg wrote.

The statement “he has molested and tortured data” could easily be interpreted to mean that the plaintiff distorted, manipulated, or misrepresented his data. Certainly the statement is capable of a defamatory meaning, which means the questions of whether it was false and made with “actual malice” are questions of fact for the jury. … To state as a fact that a scientist dishonestly molests or tortures data to serve a political agenda would have a strong likelihood of damaging his reputation within his profession, which is the very essence of defamation.

Judge Weisberg denied CEI’s and National Review’s motions to dismiss the lawsuit.

[arcane1]

1. Well, isn't that interesting?

Wholesale lying just got a little more difficult

[AAO]

6. That remains to be seen

My take is that this won't make any difference in the outright lying of Republicans. They may be more careful of defamation, etc., but lying is still (apparently) protected speech. Even lying to get the most powerful military machine on the planet to destroy a functioning society and kill hundreds of thousand. Someone please explain how that can be considered "protected speech"...

The only people that can change things is the irresponsible, lazy, and bought off journalists that still see things as "he said, she said". If the media would ever do it's homework and call out these lies, the GOP would be GONE yesterday.

[longship]

2. Good! Very good! R&K nt

[malaise]

3. K & R

Important

[giftedgirl77]

4. K & R

It's about time someone called them out on their crap.

[ananda]

5. This is good news.

..

[Curmudgeoness]

7. Right wing whining in....3......2......1

Free speech!!! Constitution!!! Treehuggers!!!

[mountain grammy]

8. Thank you for posting this. I had just read it and came to DU to post it, but you beat me to it.

Great minds think alike...

Good for the Judge. Free speech doesn't include slander.

[Mr.Bill]

9. While this decision in this individual case

gives me some satisfaction, it could be a very bad precedent if the shoe was on the other foot.

The more the courts and lawyers stay out of the internet, the better. Just my opinion.

[dlwickham]

10. lying is lying no matter who is doing it

no matter where they're doing it

[spooky3]

11. I don't see this as much of a new precedent but rather, following existing precedent.

You can't defame someone (using the legal stds that apply); defamation is not protected speech. The only question here (speaking as a non lawyer) that I see is whether the medium you use to harm someone with false allegations matters. If anything, defamation is even worse when the internet (vs a neighborhood flyer, for example) is used. The judge took great care to distinguish offering harmless opinions about a private party vs allegations of wrongdoing known to be untrue and intended to harm a scientist's reputation and access to resources.

Courts are not going to ignore the internet, nor should they. Note the recent conviction of the guy who posted photos of women without their consent.