A defamation lawsuit may kill National Review

[DonViejo]

Conservatism's flagship publication is losing a legal battle that could end in disaster

ELIAS ISQUITH

National Review, the leading right-wing magazine founded by William F. Buckley, is in a world of trouble — and they have one of their most popular columnists, Mark Steyn, to thank.

Steyn, as well as the magazine he writes for, are being sued by influential climate scientist Michael Mann for defamation. Mann took issue with a piece by Steyn in which the columnist accused Mann of fraud and approvingly quoted another right-wing writer, who wrote that Mann was “the Jerry Sandusky of climate science, except that instead of molesting children, he has molested and tortured data.”

Usually, defamation is a charge that’s notoriously hard to make stick in the American legal system. So National Review’s initial response to Mann’s suit was to shrug it off and decline to apologize. But now that Mann’s suit has gone to court, things are looking considerably different. Two separate judges have disagreed with National Review’s argument that Mann’s suit should be dismissed — and now the discovery phase is set to begin.

Most remarkable, however, has been the behavior of Steyn — the one who got National Review into this mess in the first place. Rather than keep quiet and keep his head down, Steyn at one point wrote a caustic blog post which described one of the judges reviewing the case as stupid and incompetent. The predictable result of this brazen act of self-destruction was Steyn’s being dumped by the law firm tasked with defending him. And it looks like the firm is soon to show National Review the door, too.

No matter who’s representing them, however, the outlook for the folks running National Review is grim. Like many political magazines, National Review has a relatively small (but influential) circulation, and frequently loses money. Breaking even is a good year. So a large settlement with Mann, or a penalty handed down by a judge, could prove catastrophic.

###

http://www.salon.com/2014/01/30/a_defamation_lawsuit_may_kill_national_review/

[Gothmog]

1. This case survived the motion to dismiss

In most of these cases, there is a settlement after the plaintiff's case survives the normal motions to dismiss. Last week the judge in this case dismissed the National Review's motion to dismiss http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024397611 I had not heard about the law firm dumping one of the defendants. It takes a great deal for an attorney to withdraw in the middle of a case.

I have been following this case for a while now. Prof. Mann is not going to settle and the National Review did defame Mann. I am hoping that there will be a major verdict for Prof. Mann in this case

[Cha]

24. Thanks G~

[TwilightGardener]

2. Republicans never know when to fucking shut up. They imagine themselves badasses

and that apologies and/or prudent silence is a sign of weak girlymen. I love to see this tendency bite them in the ass. Edit to add: linking a scientist and his work to a man who serially raped children is just as low as you can get. I hope Mann collects, big time.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

10. Actually, they imagine that they own EVERYTHING including the courts....

They are always STUNNED when a judge refuses to be bought.

[bpj62]

20. DNA coding

I couldn't agree more. I once replied to a comment posted by a friend on facebook and one of his teabagger friends responded by saying that compromise was for the weak and liberals and the only thing that mattered was total victory. I have always kept his quote in the back of my head when dealing with wing nuts and teabaggers. Regarding the National Review I am surprised that they allowed the column to even be published. You may be able to get away with calling someone a fraud but to equate them and their work with the worst child molester we have seen in the last 30 years is just asking for a lawsuit. Stupid is as stupid does.

[truebluegreen]

3. How sad.

[stopbush]

4. Mark Steyn is a lunatic.

His column is carried in the OC Register, our local RW rag.

[BobbyBoring]

7. He's also

An illegal alien. Not sure from what planet though~

[yellowcanine]

5. Defamation hard to prove but not impossible. Publicly accusing a research scientist of fraud

with no proof just may be something which would qualify because the integrity of a research scientist goes directly to the ability to be considered for positions, receive promotions, etc. And airing those accusations in a national magazine without affording Mann an opportunity to defend his reputation is particularly egregious. If National Review were smart about this they would find a way to settle with Mann and cut it's ties with Steyn. Mann might at least drop the suit against the magazine with the right kind of apology and perhaps a token payment toward Mann's legal fees. Certainly given Steyn's outburst against the judge it does not seem that National Review has any further responsibility to Steyn. Most employers have some kind of clause that the responsibility to defend their employee in court ends when the employee deliberately damages the legal case with inappropriate behavior.

[okaawhatever]

22. Mann is refusing to settle. He wants this to go to court and be heard. I think he wants case law and

public awareness. I've read that most plaintiff's in his position are discouraged by the discovery process, but Mann has been through that with the government so he knows and isn't concerned.
This is a little more cut and dry than a regular slander case because Steyn wrote that he manipulated data. That is a pretty cut and dry argument for rebuttal. I'm going to love if this goes to court and the outcome is that the data for Mann's findings on climate change are accurate and based on solid scientific evidence.
The oil companies will make sure Steyn never works again. Poetic justice.

[PeoViejo]

6. The Koch Brothers will bail them out.

It would not surprise me to learn that the Koch Brothers have been subsidizing the Publication all along.

[geek tragedy]

8. them or Shelly Adelson nt

[Cha]

25. lol at your sig line. rofl

[tclambert]

13. The Kochs are 73 and 78. Sheldon Adelson is 80.

I don't mean to sound ageist here, but they are OLD. What is the Republican plan for when they die? Other than continuous weeping.

[saidsimplesimon]

16. Weeping not in the vocabulary

The Kochs are into the whole foods, yesterday, dynasty delusion.

[davidpdx]

26. I think that is a decent question

All three have children. I have no doubt they'd leave some money to conservative causes.

[jmowreader]

29. They almost certainly have staffs who will carry on their troglodyte traditions

[Aldo Leopold]

9. I have high hopes for Mann's case.

It would appear to be the very definition of defamation.

[Nay]

11. I agree, and I hope Mann doesn't settle out of court. I hope he takes it all

the way, which will make other RW publications take note and, perhaps, dial back the utter craziness if only for $$ purposes.

[Warpy]

12. National Review is still around?

Buckley would be condemned by the present crop of Republicans as a RINO. I guess hit pieces by men like Steyn who don't know what they're talking about yet never stop talking are their attempt to stay relevant in a party that is catering to its worst factions--the bible bangers and teabaggers.

This lawsuit probably won't do it. However, I don't think much of its longevity.

[Orsino]

14. My dim recollection is that the Review has been on life support for a long time...

...supported by its sugar daddies. The magazine has been so out of the public eye for so long that the wingnut welfare may not bail it out.

[struggle4progress]

15. Oh, dear

[eggplant]

17. I hope he wins all of the "intellectual" property, copyrights and trademarks

Maybe he could sell the masthead to Mother Jones.

Shutting them down isn't enough -- you have to prevent them from coming back.

[another_liberal]

18. Sounds like the Koch brothers are going to have to provide a bunch more money . . .

Or this nasty, lying rag is going down.

[Jack Rabbit]

19. I believe Mr. Buckley is turning over in his grave

I seldom agreed with Buckley, but I usually learned something or at least heard something thought-provoking watching Firing Line or reading his column in the paper. While he would have defended the right of fossil fuel corporations to sponsor the global-warming-is-a-hoax hoax, an d perhaps have even been complicit in propagating it, the kind of hyperbole used by Steyn in comparing a climate scientist to a child molester is the kind of abuse of the decorum that would have made Buckley bristle.

[Gothmog]

21. The individual defendant fired his legal counsel and is defending this case pro se

The individual defendant who wrote the stupid attack has fired a very good law firm because that law firm would not approve of this idiot writing an article attacking the judge http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/01/30/climate-scientists-lawsuit-could-wipe-out-conservative-national-review-magazine/

Then, at Christmastime, Steyn abruptly fired the legal team representing him and the magazine, white shoe firm Steptoe and Johnson, after an argument over a highly inflammatory — and appallingly typed — NRO post about Judge Combs Greene. Steyn accused her of “staggering incompetence,” called her stupid, and accused her of deliberate obtuseness regarding the Mann suit.

Now, Steyn is representing himself against Mann and he and the Review have parted ways.

Steyn wrote to Mother Jones, saying that he was simply no longer able to contain his sense of disdain for the federal judge and her decision not to dismiss Mann’s suit.

Firing your counsel in the middle of case is not a good idea. The fact that Steyn is representing himself is bad news for the National Review. Steyn is out of control and is probably judgment proof, i.e., he has nothing to lose if Prof. Mann wins the lawsuit. Steyn's stupidity could well hurt the chances of the National Review in defending this lawsuit.

Finally, I love the fact that Rich Lowery is begging for donations. From the article cited above

As many of you know, National Review is not a non-profit — we are just not profitable. A lawsuit is not something we can fund with money we don’t have. Of course, we’ll do whatever we have to do to find ourselves victorious in court and Professor Mann thoroughly defeated, as he so richly deserves to be. Meanwhile, we have to hire attorneys, which ain’t cheap.

The bills are already mounting.

This is our fight, legally. But with the global-warming extremists going all-out to silence critics, it’s your fight too, morally. When we were sued, we heard from many of you who expressed a desire to help underwrite our legal defense. We deeply appreciated the outpouring of promised help.

Now we really need it.

Lowery is desperate and he should be worried. Prof. Mann has a great case and should win this lawsuit

[Cha]

23. Eeeek! Hubris thy name is Mark Steyn..

"Most remarkable, however, has been the behavior of Steyn — the one who got National Review into this mess in the first place. Rather than keep quiet and keep his head down, Steyn at one point wrote a caustic blog post which described one of the judges reviewing the case as stupid and incompetent. The predictable result of this brazen act of self-destruction was Steyn’s being dumped by the law firm tasked with defending him. And it looks like the firm is soon to show National Review the door, too."

mahalo DV

[lame54]

27. Darn - I'll have to go back to buying regular toilet paper

[Gothmog]

28. Here is another article on this lawsuit

I have bookmarked and read a couple of different climate science sites. I love going to the links and reading some of the scientific papers to see if I can still follow the math.

Here is an article that I saw on one of these sites (yes it is from Newsweek but it is still good) http://mag.newsweek.com/2014/01/31/change-legal-climate.html

That is, until maybe now, with the spinning potentially coming to a stop in the most unlikely of places - a Federal district court in Washington, D.C. There, a little-noticed lawsuit filed by one of the world's preeminent climatologists against a premiere conservative publication and a conservative think tank is moving forward, and both sides - absent dismissal or settlement - will have to put up or shut up.

The suit filed by Michael Mann, director of the Earth System Science Center at Pennsylvania State University, claims that the National Review and the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) libeled him in a pair of articles in which they stated he had manipulated climate data and that the fraud had been covered up by his employer, which said its investigation concluded he had done nothing wrong. To make the point, the CEI writer, Rand Simberg, drew a comparison between Penn State's handling of abuse allegations against Jerry Sandusky - the university's longtime assistant football coach convicted as a child molester - and its review of Mann's work....

For months before those articles, Mann and other climatologists had been speaking among themselves about the need to start fighting back against the attacks on their work and their character. The science is on their side, they argue, and by not responding aggressively against the skeptics, they have allowed the discussion to become derailed. And if critics have slandered or libeled them, they shouldn't stand for it.

"If we don't step up to the plate, we leave a vacuum [for] those with an ax to grind," Mann says, while cautioning that he would not specifically address the lawsuit. Mann has no doubt some critics are advancing their positions honestly, but he believes that responding to bad-faith attacks on climatologists and their work is "a call to arms to our fellow scientists. We should not apologize for trying to inform that discussion."

It appears that the scientific community has decided not to take crap from the climate deniers and flat earthers any longer. I am happy about this development.

[hobie]

30. Possible Reason for attacking judge

By attacking the judge, it might force that judge off the case due to prejudice, which means a different judge would have to hear the case.