john-- i agree with your assessment of the issues, except that i would also add, '3) does a person have a right to publicly express an opinion about a public figure NOT based on scientific evidence or any evidence?'
NY Times v Sullivan and similar guarantees regarding speech have never required speech against public figures to be based on evidence of any kind. in this case, mann did not dispute that he is a public figure
it's fine to use 'science' to undermine the climate change agenda as some have done, but you do not need science to see the agenda for what it is, which is part of a movement toward international socialism that aims to regulate individuals in every aspect of their lives from education, marriage, sexuality, transportation, what you can and can't say, how you can cook your food, and, coming soon, what you can and can't eat
all human beings know the truth and know when they are being lied to. for this reason people who are not educated about 'science' can know the nature of the climate change agenda
i did read the legal summary you linked to, and notwithstanding that, had intended to write my own. but then i found this excellent summary and discussion, to which i would add or subtract nothing. it explains the issues very well, including the dim prospects on appeal:
john-- i agree with your assessment of the issues, except that i would also add, '3) does a person have a right to publicly express an opinion about a public figure NOT based on scientific evidence or any evidence?'
NY Times v Sullivan and similar guarantees regarding speech have never required speech against public figures to be based on evidence of any kind. in this case, mann did not dispute that he is a public figure
it's fine to use 'science' to undermine the climate change agenda as some have done, but you do not need science to see the agenda for what it is, which is part of a movement toward international socialism that aims to regulate individuals in every aspect of their lives from education, marriage, sexuality, transportation, what you can and can't say, how you can cook your food, and, coming soon, what you can and can't eat
all human beings know the truth and know when they are being lied to. for this reason people who are not educated about 'science' can know the nature of the climate change agenda
i did read the legal summary you linked to, and notwithstanding that, had intended to write my own. but then i found this excellent summary and discussion, to which i would add or subtract nothing. it explains the issues very well, including the dim prospects on appeal:
https://www.manhattancontrarian.com/blog/2024-2-8-trial-of-mann-v-steyn-part-v-jury-instructions-and-closing-argument#:~:text=In%20short%20summary%2C%20the%20judge,disregarded%20its%20truth%20or%20falsity
Without open and civil debate, science will cease to exist. The corruption is so deep that I believe we've entered another Dark Age.
This makes my stomach turn! That DC swamp needs to be drained.
Maybe Deagel was correct.
Maybe we need a massive cull of imbecillic retards, with zero redeeming qualities.
This is a "Mann-tastically" dangerous result.