National Review Online
Thursday, May 23, 2019
In 2012, Barack Obama was still president, indeed had
four years left in his presidency. “Gangnam Style” was a world-beating music
video. Game of Thrones had just
gotten started. And, oh yeah, the climate scientist Michael Mann sued National Review over a blog post.
Seven years later, this case has gone pretty much
nowhere, thanks to a dilatory D.C. Court of Appeals.
Now, National
Review has asked the Supreme Court of the United States to intervene in the
case of Mann v. National Review, Inc.,
to at long last reach a resolution that vindicates free speech.
At stake in this fight is nothing less than the integrity
of the First Amendment — and, by extension, the right of all Americans to
engage in robust political debate without being dragged into court by the
frivolous and the hypersensitive to be bled dry of their time, effort, and
money. That, after seven years, National
Review has not yet been freed from this frivolous claim is bad enough. But
that inconvenience, real as it is, pales in comparison to the damage that would
be done to America’s broader debate were the indifference of the D.C. Court of
Appeals to become a chilling national precedent.
A quick refresher is in order: Michael Mann sued National Review for libel over a
270-word blog post that was critical of his now-infamous “hockey stick” graph
and its role within the global-warming debate. Naturally, National Review resolved to fight the suit, which represents one of
the worst attempts to bully a press organization in recent memory. As our
petition for certiorari notes, Mann’s lawsuit presumes that a “subjective,
value-laden critique on a matter of public concern can be construed as a
provably false fact.” Worse still, it presumes that such critiques can — and
should — be litigated in the courts, rather than in the public square. Should
Mann prevail, our petition concludes, “the result would be to insert courts and
juries into every hot-button political and scientific dispute, to allow
politicians to sue their critics at will, and ultimately to chill and deter the
robust debate that is the lifeblood of our republic.”
We do not intend to let this happen. And neither, it
should be noted, do any of the many organizations from across the political
spectrum that have, at various stages in the process, filed briefs in our
behalf. There is not much that brings together National Review, the Washington
Post, Time Inc., the ACLU, the Cato Institute, and the Electronic Frontier
Foundation, but a strong belief in the importance of the freedom of speech
does. Michael Mann’s shamefully crimped view of how debate should be conducted
in this country is not one that any jurisdiction would want to be written into
law. As our petition says, Mann is seeking to create a world in which “libel lawyers
will be in hot demand, but public debate will dry up.” He must not be permitted
to do so.
If ever there were a case ripe for oversight from the
highest court in the land, this is it. It relates to one of our most important
constitutional provisions. It has been deferred for years, to the point of
having been evaded. It involves a conflict of authority among the lower courts.
It affects the nation’s capital, where hotly contested issues often end up.
No comments:
Post a Comment