Since truth is an absolute defence to an action in defamation this is just one more concept that he does not understand but on which he feels perfectly entitled to pontificate. It’s endless.
Well, yes, but there’s nothing stopping you acting as a litigant in person – harder if you’re the plaintiff, though not impossible by any means, but he’s talking about defendants where it’s considerably easier.
The burden is on the plaintiff to prove defamation. If you have said stuff which is provably true, and you should have the proof if you’re saying stuff which is actionable (and if you don’t then I don’t have much sympathy), then it shouldn’t be too hard?
More to the point, if you say stuff which is provably true most people won’t sue you.
Obviously it would cause issues – time, stress etc, and a big risk of financial losses if you lose (but see above) – but I’d have thought these were inherent in any system which allows actions for defamation.
I have no time for Murphy, but you have only to look at the example of Mark Steyn for how much time and money and health you can lose defending yourself even though everything you’ve said and written is true.
Steyn used the word “fraud” and compared him to a child molester. Unless you have evidence of deliberate malice (which fraud implies) you are libelling someone.
Plenty of people are criticising the Hockey Stick without getting sued.
I do not think Steyn did do that, but I have not been able to find the offending post …
(from memory, I think what he did was copy-paste some analogy by someone else between a child rapist at Mann’s university in which torturing kids was likened to torturing data before, concluded Steyn, ‘I’m not sure I’d extend the analogy quite that far’).
That’s about right. He should never have been found against, but the jury were (presumably) the typical lefty twats.
They awarded Mann nominal compensatory damages of $1 against Steyn with a further $1 million in punitive damages, but since then the judge has sanctioned Mann and his legal team for providing misleading and inconsistent information as bad faith and ‘an affront to the Court’s authority’ (specifically, Mann’s lawyers presented a chart listing a grant that he allegedly lost due to the defamatory remarks as worth $9.7 million, when it was actually worth $112,000).
The judge then threw out the $1 million award and reduced the damages to $5,000.
Best of all, Mann was then ordered to pay attorneys’ fees totalling $477,350 to the defendants under the Anti-SLAPP Act (designed to protect free speech from frivolous defamation lawsuits).
So Mann ‘won’ but actually he fucking lost big time (though he is obviously appealing).
Mann lost nothing, he didn’t pay for his lawyers and won’t have to pay any damages himself. And his ego was massaged big time. And he put a mighty great frightener into anyone with a public presence, warning them not to be foolish enough to try use the truth to undermine the climate hoax.
I believe, from memory, Steyn made a comment referencing a bloke called Sendusky (convicted child molester / abuser) who was at the same Uni (Penn State) as Mann.
A comparison was inferred and Mann set the American lawfare system into action……. I wonder who has been bankrolling Mann these last couple of decades?????
He used the term Scientific Fraud, and that is exactly what Michael Mann did. M is right, if you come up against a truly “big gun” establishment figure, the truth is almost irrelevant, you will be practically destroyed regardless.
America is a weird system. But yes, as I said, it’s going to be a stressful, difficult process. It’s just not the case that it prevents the truth being told.
Truth for the public benefit. The truth alone is not good enough. For example, gratuitously publishing someone’s criminal record could be defamatory in the right circumstances.
If it was a spent conviction, possibly. But the general rule generally holds.
Grist
1 month ago
Didn’t he stoutly defend himself against Lord Ashcroft and won because he was telling the truth?
Oh, no, he lost because he just made stuff up to damage the man’s reputation…
Van_Patten
1 month ago
The sooner the dreadful ‘Good Law Project’ and Soapy Joe himself can be sued out of existence and struck off for misconduct the better – it could act as a cue to defenstrate Hard left activists across the Judiciary.
Emil
1 month ago
Him and the left have a different definition of “truth” than ours. Theirs is based on the (subjectively) good intentions and feelings of the person making a claim.
Richard ‘The Respondent’ Murphy is not enamoured of our libel laws; shocker!
PJF
1 month ago
Putzchah
Ed P
1 month ago
Insanity – Mann has tried every trick to avoid admitting his contrived nonsense, but the truth is out. Hockey stick nonsense has cost the world millions and made many sheeple believe global bollocks.
Since truth is an absolute defence to an action in defamation this is just one more concept that he does not understand but on which he feels perfectly entitled to pontificate. It’s endless.
Well, sort of. The truth, plus enough money to pay for legal representation etc.
Well, yes, but there’s nothing stopping you acting as a litigant in person – harder if you’re the plaintiff, though not impossible by any means, but he’s talking about defendants where it’s considerably easier.
The burden is on the plaintiff to prove defamation. If you have said stuff which is provably true, and you should have the proof if you’re saying stuff which is actionable (and if you don’t then I don’t have much sympathy), then it shouldn’t be too hard?
More to the point, if you say stuff which is provably true most people won’t sue you.
Obviously it would cause issues – time, stress etc, and a big risk of financial losses if you lose (but see above) – but I’d have thought these were inherent in any system which allows actions for defamation.
I have no time for Murphy, but you have only to look at the example of Mark Steyn for how much time and money and health you can lose defending yourself even though everything you’ve said and written is true.
Plus Tim Ball, M.
Steyn used the word “fraud” and compared him to a child molester. Unless you have evidence of deliberate malice (which fraud implies) you are libelling someone.
Plenty of people are criticising the Hockey Stick without getting sued.
I do not think Steyn did do that, but I have not been able to find the offending post …
(from memory, I think what he did was copy-paste some analogy by someone else between a child rapist at Mann’s university in which torturing kids was likened to torturing data before, concluded Steyn, ‘I’m not sure I’d extend the analogy quite that far’).
That’s about right. He should never have been found against, but the jury were (presumably) the typical lefty twats.
They awarded Mann nominal compensatory damages of $1 against Steyn with a further $1 million in punitive damages, but since then the judge has sanctioned Mann and his legal team for providing misleading and inconsistent information as bad faith and ‘an affront to the Court’s authority’ (specifically, Mann’s lawyers presented a chart listing a grant that he allegedly lost due to the defamatory remarks as worth $9.7 million, when it was actually worth $112,000).
The judge then threw out the $1 million award and reduced the damages to $5,000.
Best of all, Mann was then ordered to pay attorneys’ fees totalling $477,350 to the defendants under the Anti-SLAPP Act (designed to protect free speech from frivolous defamation lawsuits).
So Mann ‘won’ but actually he fucking lost big time (though he is obviously appealing).
.
I must say that I find him extremely unappealing!
Mann lost nothing, he didn’t pay for his lawyers and won’t have to pay any damages himself. And his ego was massaged big time. And he put a mighty great frightener into anyone with a public presence, warning them not to be foolish enough to try use the truth to undermine the climate hoax.
The wheels of justice grind exceedin slow, but Mann will end up bigly out of pocket.
I believe, from memory, Steyn made a comment referencing a bloke called Sendusky (convicted child molester / abuser) who was at the same Uni (Penn State) as Mann.
A comparison was inferred and Mann set the American lawfare system into action……. I wonder who has been bankrolling Mann these last couple of decades?????
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/football-and-hockey-mark-steyn/
Thank you.
More or less as I thought.
He used the term Scientific Fraud, and that is exactly what Michael Mann did. M is right, if you come up against a truly “big gun” establishment figure, the truth is almost irrelevant, you will be practically destroyed regardless.
Did he? It was a deliberately malicious piece of science rather than a mistake?
America is a weird system. But yes, as I said, it’s going to be a stressful, difficult process. It’s just not the case that it prevents the truth being told.
You do not really need to have a lot of legal representation if you said or wrote something you have evidence for its accuracy.
It’s only when you are repeating someone else’s assertions that things get sticky.
Indeed. It’s open and shut. Most people aren’t going to take you to court because it will only amplify the thing said when they lose.
He had some very expensive personal tuition on the subject. Still gets it wrong.
Truth for the public benefit. The truth alone is not good enough. For example, gratuitously publishing someone’s criminal record could be defamatory in the right circumstances.
If it was a spent conviction, possibly. But the general rule generally holds.
Didn’t he stoutly defend himself against Lord Ashcroft and won because he was telling the truth?
Oh, no, he lost because he just made stuff up to damage the man’s reputation…
The sooner the dreadful ‘Good Law Project’ and Soapy Joe himself can be sued out of existence and struck off for misconduct the better – it could act as a cue to defenstrate Hard left activists across the Judiciary.
Him and the left have a different definition of “truth” than ours. Theirs is based on the (subjectively) good intentions and feelings of the person making a claim.
Different definition of ‘democracy,’ too.
Richard ‘The Respondent’ Murphy is not enamoured of our libel laws; shocker!
Putzchah
Insanity – Mann has tried every trick to avoid admitting his contrived nonsense, but the truth is out. Hockey stick nonsense has cost the world millions and made many sheeple believe global bollocks.
Penn Jillete on avoiding lawsuits.
https://youtu.be/ev2lsbM1lCo?si=Jfko2fRM_U74LM5u
Summary, in the US anyway, calling someone a liar is actionable, but mere abuse “and then there’s this arsehole” is much harder to prove a case.
Again – his problem is he does not know what the words he uses means.
It’s not libel *if it’s true.’