Jury awards climate scientist Michael Mann $1M in defamation lawsuit(apnews.com)
apnews.com
Jury awards climate scientist Michael Mann $1M in defamation lawsuit
https://apnews.com/article/climate-change-defamation-michael-mann-penn-state-61289ee2d8d2143768d28995c83899ef
156 comments
It's actually a very weird verdict that makes me (far from a climate skeptic) feel very icky. Whether or not you like Steyn, he makes a valid point here:
> “We always said that Mann never suffered any actual injury from the statement at issue,” Steyn said on Thursday through his manager. “And today, after twelve years, the jury awarded him one dollar in compensatory damages.”
The jury essentially acknowledged that there was no actual damage, but then proceeded to levy an enormous punitive fine for... reasons. That feels less like the jury was persuaded by hard evidence that Mann was in the right and more that the jury was persuaded that Steyn was subjectively a bad person who needed punishing, which is a weird outcome.
> “We always said that Mann never suffered any actual injury from the statement at issue,” Steyn said on Thursday through his manager. “And today, after twelve years, the jury awarded him one dollar in compensatory damages.”
The jury essentially acknowledged that there was no actual damage, but then proceeded to levy an enormous punitive fine for... reasons. That feels less like the jury was persuaded by hard evidence that Mann was in the right and more that the jury was persuaded that Steyn was subjectively a bad person who needed punishing, which is a weird outcome.
The reasons are clearly stated in the article
>It awarded punitive damages of $1,000 from Simberg and $1 million from Steyn, after finding that the pair made their statements with “maliciousness, spite, ill will, vengeance or deliberate intent to harm.
>It awarded punitive damages of $1,000 from Simberg and $1 million from Steyn, after finding that the pair made their statements with “maliciousness, spite, ill will, vengeance or deliberate intent to harm.
I didn't say they didn't provide reasoning, I said that their reasoning feels icky to me. Essentially, the jury's decision says that no harm was done but that Steyn's motives for speech were reason enough for him to be punished regardless of the actual outcome of that speech.
To me that's a very scary result.
To me that's a very scary result.
It was intent to harm through lying. I'm not sure why that feels scary, seems pretty right in line with defamation in general.
The truth is an absolute defense in defamation, so the scary result is what? Willfully lying to harm people is not protected?
To take it a step further, if the person being lied about is a public figure, lying enjoys even more protections (you basically have to have the smoking "I'm lying about this" email for a public figure to prove defamation).
The truth is an absolute defense in defamation, so the scary result is what? Willfully lying to harm people is not protected?
To take it a step further, if the person being lied about is a public figure, lying enjoys even more protections (you basically have to have the smoking "I'm lying about this" email for a public figure to prove defamation).
It sounds to me like the jury felt that the harm was to third parties. Which isn't actually what the law says - the harm is supposed to be to the one defamed.
This is a problem because on the one hand, the jury should not have based its award on harm to third parties, because that would not have properly been argued before it. But it also means that defamation is not adequate to defend science, where most of the harm of attacking science is towards third parties.
I'd quite like to see lying in public life punished more harshly, because it is in fact corrosive to both public and private life. But it's going to be hard to frame 'harm to third parties' well, since it potentially covers a lot of political speech.
This is a problem because on the one hand, the jury should not have based its award on harm to third parties, because that would not have properly been argued before it. But it also means that defamation is not adequate to defend science, where most of the harm of attacking science is towards third parties.
I'd quite like to see lying in public life punished more harshly, because it is in fact corrosive to both public and private life. But it's going to be hard to frame 'harm to third parties' well, since it potentially covers a lot of political speech.
> It was intent to harm through lying. I'm not sure why that feels scary, seems pretty right in line with defamation in general.
Not in the US. If no harm is done, there's no defamation, harm being done is part of the definition:
> To prove prima facie defamation, a plaintiff must show four things: 1) a false statement purporting to be fact; 2) publication or communication of that statement to a third person; 3) fault amounting to at least negligence; and 4) damages, or some harm caused to the reputation of the person or entity who is the subject of the statement.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/defamation
Not in the US. If no harm is done, there's no defamation, harm being done is part of the definition:
> To prove prima facie defamation, a plaintiff must show four things: 1) a false statement purporting to be fact; 2) publication or communication of that statement to a third person; 3) fault amounting to at least negligence; and 4) damages, or some harm caused to the reputation of the person or entity who is the subject of the statement.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/defamation
The jury found some harm done (1 dollars worth) and then issued punitive damages because of the intent to harm.
Punitive damages are for when a judge/jury feels the conduct of one of the party's was bad. Conduct includes things like trying to damage someone's reputation.
Again, I just fall to see what's scary here. Don't plan on lying about someone and your golden.
Punitive damages are for when a judge/jury feels the conduct of one of the party's was bad. Conduct includes things like trying to damage someone's reputation.
Again, I just fall to see what's scary here. Don't plan on lying about someone and your golden.
Punitive damages are typically capped at a 4:1 ratio to the actual damages. 10:1 is suspect, and even the extreme cases that go all the way to the Supreme Court are 500:1. This is 1m:1, 2000 times the most extreme cases (which the Supreme Court usually throws out).
>The code is more what you'd call ‘guidelines’ than actual rules.
>The District of Columbia does not cap either compensatory or punitive damages, and the collateral source rule applies.
https://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/insurance-laws-and-produ...
>The District of Columbia does not cap either compensatory or punitive damages, and the collateral source rule applies.
https://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/insurance-laws-and-produ...
Whether there's a cap on the monetary amount of damages is a separate question from whether there's a maximum ratio between the two. Supreme Court rulings on the ratio are binding everywhere in the US, so state-by-state differences in other aspects of the law aren't relevant to the question.
The supreme court has never put a cap on punitives and in fact, for egregious conduct they've affirmed that no ratio applies. [1]
In fact, if anything it looks like the supreme court has basically left everything to be determined in a case by case basis.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TXO_Production_Corp._v._Allian.... (Note, there's a period at the end here that HN is removing)
In fact, if anything it looks like the supreme court has basically left everything to be determined in a case by case basis.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TXO_Production_Corp._v._Allian.... (Note, there's a period at the end here that HN is removing)
Yes, and that was not a defamation case. There's no chance on this earth that if this makes it to the Supreme Court the court will rule that a 1m:1 ratio is acceptable in a speech case (regardless of the political composition of the court at the time), and if they did it would represent a major step backward for free speech in the US.
After TXO, the Supreme Court wrote this in BMW, Inc. v. Gore where a similar 500:1 ratio was at stake (and was overturned) [0]:
> The $2 million in punitive damages awarded to Dr. Gore by the Alabama Supreme Court is 500 times the amount of his actual harm as determined by the jury. Moreover, there is no suggestion that Dr. Gore or any other BMW pur- chaser was threatened with any additional potential harm by BMW’s nondisclosure policy. The disparity in this case is thus dramatically greater than those considered in Haslip and TXO.
> Once again, “we return to what we said . . . in Haslip: ‘We need not, and indeed we cannot, draw a mathematical bright line between the constitutionally acceptable and the constitutionally unacceptable that would fit every case. We can say, however, that [a] general concer[n] of reasonableness . . . properly enter[s] into the constitutional calculus.’ ” Id., at 458 (quoting Haslip, 499 U. S., at 18). In most cases, the ratio will be within a constitutionally acceptable range, and remittitur will not be justified on this basis. When the ratio is a breathtaking 500 to 1, however, the award must surely “raise a suspicious judicial eyebrow.”
When a "suspicious judicial eyebrow" gets raised in a speech case in the US, the plaintiff has already lost.
[0] https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/517/559/case.pdf
After TXO, the Supreme Court wrote this in BMW, Inc. v. Gore where a similar 500:1 ratio was at stake (and was overturned) [0]:
> The $2 million in punitive damages awarded to Dr. Gore by the Alabama Supreme Court is 500 times the amount of his actual harm as determined by the jury. Moreover, there is no suggestion that Dr. Gore or any other BMW pur- chaser was threatened with any additional potential harm by BMW’s nondisclosure policy. The disparity in this case is thus dramatically greater than those considered in Haslip and TXO.
> Once again, “we return to what we said . . . in Haslip: ‘We need not, and indeed we cannot, draw a mathematical bright line between the constitutionally acceptable and the constitutionally unacceptable that would fit every case. We can say, however, that [a] general concer[n] of reasonableness . . . properly enter[s] into the constitutional calculus.’ ” Id., at 458 (quoting Haslip, 499 U. S., at 18). In most cases, the ratio will be within a constitutionally acceptable range, and remittitur will not be justified on this basis. When the ratio is a breathtaking 500 to 1, however, the award must surely “raise a suspicious judicial eyebrow.”
When a "suspicious judicial eyebrow" gets raised in a speech case in the US, the plaintiff has already lost.
[0] https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/517/559/case.pdf
If I try to run you over with my car but I miss, then all is ok?
Just because they failed in harming him doesn't make it harmless.
Just because they failed in harming him doesn't make it harmless.
In the US, speech has higher protections than other malfeasance. You cannot legally be punished for defamation if your words caused no harm, regardless of your intent.
But that doesn't mean you can't be held responsible and civilly liable, which is what punitive damages are. Civil court has a "lower" standard of evidence because it can't take your rights away, not because it can't find you at fault for something and levy a "don't freaking do that" fine against you.
As I've replied elsewhere, it's not a question of the existence of the punitive damages, it's a question of ratio. 4:1 is a typical ratio, 1m:1 is completely unheard of.
You have to actually have damaged someone to have punitive damages levied for what you did, and by setting $1 as the actual damages the jury acknowledges no harm was done and therefore cannot levy substantial punitive damages.
You have to actually have damaged someone to have punitive damages levied for what you did, and by setting $1 as the actual damages the jury acknowledges no harm was done and therefore cannot levy substantial punitive damages.
They "legally" did find harm: $1
And as I've said elsewhere, that number gives them the right to levy up to $500 in punitive damages if they feel that Steyn's actions were especially egregious (and even that number would be subject to severe scrutiny on appeal). A 1:1m ratio of actual to punitive damages is just punishing speech as speech, not a true defamation verdict.
The District of Colombia doesn't have those caps
The District of Columbia is within the United States and under the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, so Supreme Court rulings establishing a rule of proportionality definitely still apply.
What you're referring to is that there is no cap to the monetary amount of either type of damages, not that the ratio between them can be severely disproportionate.
What you're referring to is that there is no cap to the monetary amount of either type of damages, not that the ratio between them can be severely disproportionate.
Considering intent is the core of America's legal system.
You can go to jail for attempted murder even if no one got hurt.
You can get away with killing someone if you can show it was an unforeseeable accident.
And yes, you can get punitive damages even if you caused little or no harm.
You can go to jail for attempted murder even if no one got hurt.
You can get away with killing someone if you can show it was an unforeseeable accident.
And yes, you can get punitive damages even if you caused little or no harm.
All of that is true for those offenses, but it is not true of speech. A plaintiff is required to prove actual damage for there to be defamation, and the jury here acknowledged that the actual damages were worth approximately nil. That means that there should be no defamation verdict, or at the very least that punitive damages should be <$10.
The rule of thumb for punitive damages in the US is a 4:1 ratio, with 10:1 or higher being almost certainly unconstitutional barring extreme circumstances. Even in those cases we're looking at ratios of 500:1, not 1m:1.
The rule of thumb for punitive damages in the US is a 4:1 ratio, with 10:1 or higher being almost certainly unconstitutional barring extreme circumstances. Even in those cases we're looking at ratios of 500:1, not 1m:1.
> All of that is true for those offenses, but it is not true of speech.
I believe this is not the case when the plaintiff can show actual malice.
> The rule of thumb for punitive damages in the US is a 4:1 ratio, with 10:1 or higher being almost certainly unconstitutional barring extreme circumstances
Right - that's why the defense is appealing, as discussed in the article. However, given that the judge did not adjust the award sua sponte I believe there is some actual legal question about whether this is one of those "extreme circumstances" (e.g. due to the degree of malice).
I believe this is not the case when the plaintiff can show actual malice.
> The rule of thumb for punitive damages in the US is a 4:1 ratio, with 10:1 or higher being almost certainly unconstitutional barring extreme circumstances
Right - that's why the defense is appealing, as discussed in the article. However, given that the judge did not adjust the award sua sponte I believe there is some actual legal question about whether this is one of those "extreme circumstances" (e.g. due to the degree of malice).
Again, the "extreme circumstances" called for ratios on the order of 500:1. This is 2000x larger.
Perhaps you're basing that on TXO v Alliance? The specific ratio for TXO (which happened to be 526-to-1) does not paint the full picture. Consider two things:
1. TXO does not provide a hard-and-fast rule on a maximum ratio of compensatory to punative damages. Rather, the justices say that "It is appropriate to consider the magnitude of the potential harm that the defendant's conduct would have caused to its intended victim if the wrongful plan had succeeded, as well as the possible harm to other victims that might have resulted if similar future behavior were not deterred."
2. TXO further limits the mandate of due process review of punitive damages by saying that the jury does not have to be wholly accurate in their assessment of punitive damages but rather that courts should ensure their award would not "jar one's constitutional sensibilities."
If a jury might reasonably think that the damage to Mann could have been about $1m if the defendant had successfully discredited him in, say, the eyes of his employers, and if the jury was given proper instructions, that is sufficient to uphold their award under TXO. Further due process review should consider these questions, not whether the punitive damage/compensatory damage ratio is over some arbitrary threshold.
1. TXO does not provide a hard-and-fast rule on a maximum ratio of compensatory to punative damages. Rather, the justices say that "It is appropriate to consider the magnitude of the potential harm that the defendant's conduct would have caused to its intended victim if the wrongful plan had succeeded, as well as the possible harm to other victims that might have resulted if similar future behavior were not deterred."
2. TXO further limits the mandate of due process review of punitive damages by saying that the jury does not have to be wholly accurate in their assessment of punitive damages but rather that courts should ensure their award would not "jar one's constitutional sensibilities."
If a jury might reasonably think that the damage to Mann could have been about $1m if the defendant had successfully discredited him in, say, the eyes of his employers, and if the jury was given proper instructions, that is sufficient to uphold their award under TXO. Further due process review should consider these questions, not whether the punitive damage/compensatory damage ratio is over some arbitrary threshold.
TXO is one of several cases I'm referring to where the 500x number came into question.
But the other way in which TXO doesn't paint the complete picture is that it is not a defamation case, and in the US we much more cautious about preemptively punishing speech (and about discouraging speech with risk of liability) than we are about other types of torts.
The ratio here isn't just large, it's completely off the charts, and an off-the-charts ratio on a speech case isn't going to fly, nor do I believe it should.
But the other way in which TXO doesn't paint the complete picture is that it is not a defamation case, and in the US we much more cautious about preemptively punishing speech (and about discouraging speech with risk of liability) than we are about other types of torts.
The ratio here isn't just large, it's completely off the charts, and an off-the-charts ratio on a speech case isn't going to fly, nor do I believe it should.
You're presenting two claims here:
1. The judiciary makes some distinction between a 500-to-1 and a 1,000,000-to-1 ratio.
2. Speech cases are somehow specially protected from high ratios between punitive and compensatory damages.
I know of no evidence in favor of the first point.
Your second point is patently false because TXO is about speech - it's literally a disparagement case.
1. The judiciary makes some distinction between a 500-to-1 and a 1,000,000-to-1 ratio.
2. Speech cases are somehow specially protected from high ratios between punitive and compensatory damages.
I know of no evidence in favor of the first point.
Your second point is patently false because TXO is about speech - it's literally a disparagement case.
> I know of no evidence in favor of the first point.
Do you know of any case where a ratio higher than 10000x was ever tested? Because there have been several that were tossed out as disproportionate at a much lower ratio than that.
> Your second point is patently false because TXO is about speech - it's literally a disparagement case.
It was a case of negotiating in bad faith by slandering a title, and the damages were awarded on the basis that TXO had engaged in similar nefarious behavior across the country while negotiating other deals. That's substantially different in character from a series of unsavory opinion pieces, and within the realm of types of speech that we typically do regulate—it's more akin to fraud than it is to personal slander/libel.
From the ruling:
> [T]he record shows that this was not an isolated incident on TXO’s part—a mere excess of zeal by poorly supervised, low level employees—but rather part of a pattern and practice by TXO to defraud and coerce those in positions of unequal bargaining power.
Do you know of any case where a ratio higher than 10000x was ever tested? Because there have been several that were tossed out as disproportionate at a much lower ratio than that.
> Your second point is patently false because TXO is about speech - it's literally a disparagement case.
It was a case of negotiating in bad faith by slandering a title, and the damages were awarded on the basis that TXO had engaged in similar nefarious behavior across the country while negotiating other deals. That's substantially different in character from a series of unsavory opinion pieces, and within the realm of types of speech that we typically do regulate—it's more akin to fraud than it is to personal slander/libel.
From the ruling:
> [T]he record shows that this was not an isolated incident on TXO’s part—a mere excess of zeal by poorly supervised, low level employees—but rather part of a pattern and practice by TXO to defraud and coerce those in positions of unequal bargaining power.
[deleted]
In criminal law, the guy who tries to shoot you but misses will get punished as well. Now whether this is a good parallel or not, your decision.
I agree it's a little scary. Would it have been protected speech if they had prefaced the offending remarks with "in my opinion " or "in this author's opinion "?
[deleted]
To me the concept of punitive damages is very suspect. Civil cases are supposed to have a lower burden of proof because they’re just compensation, not punishment, but then they throw in punitive damages. Maybe there should be a separate verdict for punitive damages with a beyond reasonable doubt standard.
There is a split in how people view the justice system should work. One thinks the laws should apply to everyone equally and the justice system is there to enforce the law. The other is that life is unfair and the justice system can be used to help fix that imbalance. We get a mix of the two in reality with the same word used to describe both. Things are, of course, more complicated, but here is a short overview of the concept[1].
[1] https://tsowell.com/spquestc.html
[1] https://tsowell.com/spquestc.html
So, I think you are correct. The jury messed up, wasn't explained to properly, etc. There are thresholds on how much punitive damages can be awarded and they are some multiple of the other damages...this one is more than that.
The reasons were...."....after finding that the pair made their statements with “maliciousness, spite, ill will, vengeance or deliberate intent to harm.”
So, the jury found that they made statements that were willfully intended to harm someone - they were deliberate to inflict harm. They found that the actual harm wasn't much in monetary terms but decided to levy a large punitive award to signal to others not to do this and punish the two that did.
That makes sense. You have to prove actual damages, either the plaintff didn't try to or were unsuccessful...so $1 and then a larger amount to punish the behavior and deter others from doing it.
The reasons were...."....after finding that the pair made their statements with “maliciousness, spite, ill will, vengeance or deliberate intent to harm.”
So, the jury found that they made statements that were willfully intended to harm someone - they were deliberate to inflict harm. They found that the actual harm wasn't much in monetary terms but decided to levy a large punitive award to signal to others not to do this and punish the two that did.
That makes sense. You have to prove actual damages, either the plaintff didn't try to or were unsuccessful...so $1 and then a larger amount to punish the behavior and deter others from doing it.
I read somewhere that it’s unconstitutional for overly high punitive damages in libel/slander cases.
Anything above single digit ratio is ($10 punitive for $1 damages) questionable.
Not sure if that applies here.
Anything above single digit ratio is ($10 punitive for $1 damages) questionable.
Not sure if that applies here.
I agree with your general argument that the ruling is somewhat self-contradictory. At the same time, I don't fault them for that verdict.
Nobody deserves to be compared to child molesters like that. That's extreme bad faith at best and deliberate character assassination at worst. He clearly suffered a moral injury.
Nobody deserves to be compared to child molesters like that. That's extreme bad faith at best and deliberate character assassination at worst. He clearly suffered a moral injury.
> the jury was persuaded that Steyn was subjectively a bad person
This seems to be par for the course for the jury system, which is why we have an appeals process run by much, much more objective people, fortunately. At least so far.
This seems to be par for the course for the jury system, which is why we have an appeals process run by much, much more objective people, fortunately. At least so far.
Which is only accessible for those with sufficient wealth and time
>levy an enormous punitive fine for... reasons.
Do you not know what the word punitive means? Punitive damages are meant to be a punishment as well as to deter others from similar behavior. They are totally normal and not meant to make the plaintiff whole.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punitive_damages
> Punitive damages, or exemplary damages, are damages assessed in order to punish the defendant for outrageous conduct and/or to reform or deter the defendant and others from engaging in conduct similar to that which formed the basis of the lawsuit.[1] Although the purpose of punitive damages is not to compensate the plaintiff, the plaintiff will receive all or some of the punitive damages in award
Do you not know what the word punitive means? Punitive damages are meant to be a punishment as well as to deter others from similar behavior. They are totally normal and not meant to make the plaintiff whole.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punitive_damages
> Punitive damages, or exemplary damages, are damages assessed in order to punish the defendant for outrageous conduct and/or to reform or deter the defendant and others from engaging in conduct similar to that which formed the basis of the lawsuit.[1] Although the purpose of punitive damages is not to compensate the plaintiff, the plaintiff will receive all or some of the punitive damages in award
My concern isn't punitive damages in the abstract, its the 1m:1 ratio of punitive damages to actual damages.
From that same Wikipedia article:
> In response to judges and juries which award high punitive damages verdicts, the Supreme Court of the United States has made several decisions which limit awards of punitive damages through the due process of law clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. In a number of cases, the Court has indicated that a 4:1 ratio between punitive and compensatory damages is high enough to lead to a finding of constitutional impropriety and that any ratio of 10:1 or higher is almost certainly unconstitutional.
There was an exception made for a 526:1 ratio because the case was especially egregious, but this ratio is 1901 times larger than the one in that Supreme Court case.
From that same Wikipedia article:
> In response to judges and juries which award high punitive damages verdicts, the Supreme Court of the United States has made several decisions which limit awards of punitive damages through the due process of law clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. In a number of cases, the Court has indicated that a 4:1 ratio between punitive and compensatory damages is high enough to lead to a finding of constitutional impropriety and that any ratio of 10:1 or higher is almost certainly unconstitutional.
There was an exception made for a 526:1 ratio because the case was especially egregious, but this ratio is 1901 times larger than the one in that Supreme Court case.
Oh wow. That's very important context. The current SCOTUS would love to get their hands on a case that lets them give their friends more protection.
Edit: not stated at all in this, but which my main point, is that the mistake was that the jury messed up on the compensatory damages, not that the punitive damages are wrong. Coffee is still kicking in...
Ok, so active harassment of a person, by a think tank, perpetuating lies and making comparisons to pedophilia is "no damages"?
This spurred on harassment including hacking of email contents.
What is possibly "icky" about a defamation result, other than the jury didn't find higher compensatory damages?
If it's OK in our society for individuals to be attacked with lies like this, with money undirected through think tanks, are you OK with your professional life and personal life being intruded in this way with lies? Really?
Ok, so active harassment of a person, by a think tank, perpetuating lies and making comparisons to pedophilia is "no damages"?
This spurred on harassment including hacking of email contents.
What is possibly "icky" about a defamation result, other than the jury didn't find higher compensatory damages?
If it's OK in our society for individuals to be attacked with lies like this, with money undirected through think tanks, are you OK with your professional life and personal life being intruded in this way with lies? Really?
I didn't say I like what Steyn and co said or that they should be allowed to say it, but the process matters.
In the US we're supposed to have a very high threshold for what kinds of speech can be punished. For defamation, it is required that the plaintiff be able to show that there were damages.
The jury's awarding of $1 shows that they were not persuaded that there was any financial damage done to Mann by this think tank's actions. Their subsequent award of $1m in punitive damages shows that they were persuaded that Steyn's speech deserved to be punished.
That second part is what I'm not comfortable with. If they awarded him $1m in compensatory damages that would be one thing, but choosing the absolute minimum and then levying a huge punitive fine is a scary result for anyone who values the speech protections we have in the US.
In the US we're supposed to have a very high threshold for what kinds of speech can be punished. For defamation, it is required that the plaintiff be able to show that there were damages.
The jury's awarding of $1 shows that they were not persuaded that there was any financial damage done to Mann by this think tank's actions. Their subsequent award of $1m in punitive damages shows that they were persuaded that Steyn's speech deserved to be punished.
That second part is what I'm not comfortable with. If they awarded him $1m in compensatory damages that would be one thing, but choosing the absolute minimum and then levying a huge punitive fine is a scary result for anyone who values the speech protections we have in the US.
You can look at it like this... They jury was concerned about the speech by the think tank. They don't want anyone else to have to suffer through it. The plaintiff though didn't have actual monetary damages from it, but you and me might have.
The jury is signaling, stronly, that this type of speech isn't allowed and should be punished. The fact that it happened to someone who wasn't monetarily harmed much by it isn't relevant but let's put a high bar out there to deter anyone else from this type of speech towards people who could be damaged.
The way the laws work it is really the only thing they could do if they believed the defendant's speech is harmful.
That's how I read into the monetary awards...
The jury is signaling, stronly, that this type of speech isn't allowed and should be punished. The fact that it happened to someone who wasn't monetarily harmed much by it isn't relevant but let's put a high bar out there to deter anyone else from this type of speech towards people who could be damaged.
The way the laws work it is really the only thing they could do if they believed the defendant's speech is harmful.
That's how I read into the monetary awards...
I know that's what the jury thought they were doing, but that isn't actually constitutional in the US. Juries are not empowered to decide whether speech isn't allowed and should be punished, they're empowered to decide whether speech is defamation and how much harm was done by said defamation.
Here, they found there was ~no harm done. That means that, constitutionally, they are unable to levy a substantial fine.
Here, they found there was ~no harm done. That means that, constitutionally, they are unable to levy a substantial fine.
Yes, they made a super edgy comparison to pedophilia, but it is pretty clear they aren't saying Mann is a pedophile. In fact, they even say he doesn't molest children:
> Mann could be said to be the Jerry Sandusky of climate science, except for instead of molesting children, he has molested and tortured data
> Mann could be said to be the Jerry Sandusky of climate science, except for instead of molesting children, he has molested and tortured data
The comparison is them saying it. You don’t evoke a thought like that without wanting to imply something.
Talk about tortured logic…
Harassment was not at issue. The jury found malice because they had to if they wanted to impose any damages at all. For a public figure—such as a public employee in the news—the "actual malice" standard applies in defamation cases in the U.S. I'm glossing over a bit of nuance regarding limited public figures, without which I'm not sure this would apply to Mann (I'm not a 1A practitioner), but Wikipedia does a pretty good job of discussing the cornerstone case and further developments, for those interested. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._Sulliv...
The issue is probably more to do with how injury is defined in the context of defamation law. Actual damages require that they prove the victim lost something tangible as a direct result of the defamation. It's not hard to argue that he lost out on the grant funding due to the previous leak or some other outside factor. The decision is more like saying the original article was a marginal factor in the specific claim they made in the lawsuit but the egregiousness of the defamation was severe enough to warrant further damages.
I think this verdict is both good and bad. We've been dragging people through the mud over nothing now for a while and celebrating it. Society is sick. It needs to stop.
At the same time, I worry about a "chilling" effect on anyone who questions "the science". Whether you like them or not, we need people who question climate science. We need people who question vaccines. Yes, they are annoying and in this case they went way, way too far.
At the same time, I worry about a "chilling" effect on anyone who questions "the science". Whether you like them or not, we need people who question climate science. We need people who question vaccines. Yes, they are annoying and in this case they went way, way too far.
> At the same time, I worry about a "chilling" effect on anyone who questions "the science".
In what way? This has nothing to do with disagreement, it's about defamation. Claiming that a researcher was intentionally and fraudulently manipulating data is an entirely different ballpark from disagreeing with their methods or conclusions.
The various groups who have decided as a matter of dogma that their pet theory is correct therefore all of science must be a conspiracy to cover up the truth will of course present things as if this verdict threatens any dissent, but that's simply nonsense.
> Whether you like them or not, we need people who question climate science. We need people who question vaccines. Yes, they are annoying and in this case they went way, way too far.
We need people who question science *in good faith*. People who disagree because they have an alternative that also fits the known facts, or because they see valid weaknesses in the methods used to come to the conclusion. Scientific progress is built on questioning things.
We do not need people like the defendants in this case who have decided that climate change is an evil liberal conspiracy to empower governments. We do not need people like Jenny McCarthy, RFK Jr., etc. who have decided that all the different often entirely unrelated kinds of vaccines in the world are somehow part of the same conspiracy to do...something. These people are not adding to the discussion, they're not contributing to progress, they're at best getting in the way and in a lot of cases trying their hardest to push things back.
I could go on and on. Creationists, flat-earthers, moon landing deniers, etc. will all scream about how the scientific establishment is silencing them for questioning things, but the reality is they're just wrong, annoying, and deserve no credit for anything because they're not doing it in good faith. They're not trying to find the truth, they've decided they know the truth and are hostile to anything else.
In what way? This has nothing to do with disagreement, it's about defamation. Claiming that a researcher was intentionally and fraudulently manipulating data is an entirely different ballpark from disagreeing with their methods or conclusions.
The various groups who have decided as a matter of dogma that their pet theory is correct therefore all of science must be a conspiracy to cover up the truth will of course present things as if this verdict threatens any dissent, but that's simply nonsense.
> Whether you like them or not, we need people who question climate science. We need people who question vaccines. Yes, they are annoying and in this case they went way, way too far.
We need people who question science *in good faith*. People who disagree because they have an alternative that also fits the known facts, or because they see valid weaknesses in the methods used to come to the conclusion. Scientific progress is built on questioning things.
We do not need people like the defendants in this case who have decided that climate change is an evil liberal conspiracy to empower governments. We do not need people like Jenny McCarthy, RFK Jr., etc. who have decided that all the different often entirely unrelated kinds of vaccines in the world are somehow part of the same conspiracy to do...something. These people are not adding to the discussion, they're not contributing to progress, they're at best getting in the way and in a lot of cases trying their hardest to push things back.
I could go on and on. Creationists, flat-earthers, moon landing deniers, etc. will all scream about how the scientific establishment is silencing them for questioning things, but the reality is they're just wrong, annoying, and deserve no credit for anything because they're not doing it in good faith. They're not trying to find the truth, they've decided they know the truth and are hostile to anything else.
I'm a classic Liberal, but I've never been convinced by the man-made climate change argument. I've always been much, much more concerned about pollution and chemicals in our environment, but that seems to never be addressed. I believe so strongly in protecting the environment that if I had the power, I would invoke anti-constitutional laws that would force chemical company CEOs to live within 1 mile of their worst factories such that those chemicals would be cleaned up immediately.
However, I have many questions about the climate change theory but every time I ask climate change enthusiasts, I get branded as a climate-change-denier or anti-environmental which makes me even more convinced that this is more of a religious debate than a scientific debate.
1) We know that the Earth was much warmer during the Great Warming Period. We also know that the Earth was much colder during the Ice Age. How do we know that right now it's because of CO2 and not because of some process by the planet?
2) As far as I can tell, the theory now is that the changing climate is evidence that the climate-change-via-CO2 theory is correct. I've heard people say that both warmer weather and colder weather are both evidence that the climate-change theory is right. It appears to me that ANY change is evidence that their theory is correct. But they can't have it both ways. In the scientific method, you make a prediction based on your theory and if your prediction doesn't come true then it means your theory is wrong. It appears that ANY CHANGE will validate their thesis, which is absurd, because the only outcome that will invalidate their thesis is NOTHING changes, which we already know is impossible. The Earth is not static and neither is its climate.
3) California had a 10 year drought (that was mostly exacerbated by pumping groundwater for farms but that's another issue entirely). Everyone was calling it "the new normal" but all it took was one good winter and all the reservoirs were filled again to above average levels. Droughts have happened before in California, but people were pointing to it as evidence that human-caused-climate-change was real. No one is talking about how it wasn't evidence at all.
However, I have many questions about the climate change theory but every time I ask climate change enthusiasts, I get branded as a climate-change-denier or anti-environmental which makes me even more convinced that this is more of a religious debate than a scientific debate.
1) We know that the Earth was much warmer during the Great Warming Period. We also know that the Earth was much colder during the Ice Age. How do we know that right now it's because of CO2 and not because of some process by the planet?
2) As far as I can tell, the theory now is that the changing climate is evidence that the climate-change-via-CO2 theory is correct. I've heard people say that both warmer weather and colder weather are both evidence that the climate-change theory is right. It appears to me that ANY change is evidence that their theory is correct. But they can't have it both ways. In the scientific method, you make a prediction based on your theory and if your prediction doesn't come true then it means your theory is wrong. It appears that ANY CHANGE will validate their thesis, which is absurd, because the only outcome that will invalidate their thesis is NOTHING changes, which we already know is impossible. The Earth is not static and neither is its climate.
3) California had a 10 year drought (that was mostly exacerbated by pumping groundwater for farms but that's another issue entirely). Everyone was calling it "the new normal" but all it took was one good winter and all the reservoirs were filled again to above average levels. Droughts have happened before in California, but people were pointing to it as evidence that human-caused-climate-change was real. No one is talking about how it wasn't evidence at all.
It's simple physics. You put gases into a glass tube and you test the heat retention. Earth's energy economy is determined by how much energy enters the earth in the form of sunrays and how much energy is lost due to infrared radiation. Climate gases are like a blanket that retains the heat, i.e., infrared radiation.
There are some fun practical experiments to be found: https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsos.192075 . Some you could realistically try at home. The first research papers on that are literally 150 years old. Those are actually interesting to look at, too. Great hand-drawn diagrams of their lab equipment.
An issue is that there are paid trolls that go around posting blanket doubt on climate change, so it's always difficult to tell whom to engage with and when it is better not to provide a stage.
There are some fun practical experiments to be found: https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsos.192075 . Some you could realistically try at home. The first research papers on that are literally 150 years old. Those are actually interesting to look at, too. Great hand-drawn diagrams of their lab equipment.
An issue is that there are paid trolls that go around posting blanket doubt on climate change, so it's always difficult to tell whom to engage with and when it is better not to provide a stage.
Hm. My understanding was that we'd pretty much saturated that bandwidth range in terms of insulation potential, and the real multiplier now is how much humidity was going to get pumped into the atmosphere as a result, with the impact of that depending on how the humidity behaves at different latitudes (clouds can be reflective or insulative depending on land, sea, day, night, tropics, temperate).
Keep in mind that so far, co2 levels have increased from below 300 to about 420 parts per million (alongside increases in other greenhouse gases). It's a stark difference that makes for a measurable increase in heat retention. The classic experiment is to fill one glass tube with atmospheric air and one with atmospheric air with added co2 and expose both to an infrared lighbulb and then take the temperature over time. Depending on the difference in concentration you can get a measurable temperature difference in hours. So it's really not a theoretical difference anymore that we need to speculate about, it's a tangible difference that we can measure with fairly basic instruments that you would find in a high school lab or even at home.
Also, thanks to both of you for sharing.
Also, thanks to both of you for sharing.
> How do we know that right now it's because of CO2 and not because of some process by the planet?
The short answer is "because there's an entire field of science that models this and figures out what contributes to global climate". Things we know contribute to the global temperature include: the atmospheric composition, the albedo of the surface, and the change in the axial tilt. The latter is currently what we understand to be the main driver of the glacial periods [we are still in the Quaternary Ice Age; we are currently in an inter-glacial period, when the glaciers have retreated toward the poles].
Greenhouse warming was also predicted well before it occurred, if it makes you feel any better; back in the 19th century people said, "Hey, we just found out that CO2 makes greenhouses warmer, and we're burning enough coal to have a measurable effect on the composition of the atmosphere; if this keeps up we should expect the Earth to begin warming up." And then, over the next century, we did and it did.
> I've heard people say that both warmer weather and colder weather are both evidence that the climate-change theory is right.
Warmer and colder weather in various places is expected, but the mean global temperature just keeps going up, up, up. It's not like we're having "coldest years on record" and then going, "Yeah, climate change is confirmed again". We have the hottest year on record, year after year, and then the polar vortex goes all wibbly-wobbly and blasts somewhere with weeks of cold. But the overall global temperature is still pretty damn warm.
The short answer is "because there's an entire field of science that models this and figures out what contributes to global climate". Things we know contribute to the global temperature include: the atmospheric composition, the albedo of the surface, and the change in the axial tilt. The latter is currently what we understand to be the main driver of the glacial periods [we are still in the Quaternary Ice Age; we are currently in an inter-glacial period, when the glaciers have retreated toward the poles].
Greenhouse warming was also predicted well before it occurred, if it makes you feel any better; back in the 19th century people said, "Hey, we just found out that CO2 makes greenhouses warmer, and we're burning enough coal to have a measurable effect on the composition of the atmosphere; if this keeps up we should expect the Earth to begin warming up." And then, over the next century, we did and it did.
> I've heard people say that both warmer weather and colder weather are both evidence that the climate-change theory is right.
Warmer and colder weather in various places is expected, but the mean global temperature just keeps going up, up, up. It's not like we're having "coldest years on record" and then going, "Yeah, climate change is confirmed again". We have the hottest year on record, year after year, and then the polar vortex goes all wibbly-wobbly and blasts somewhere with weeks of cold. But the overall global temperature is still pretty damn warm.
Don't believe it then, idk, what do you want from us? There are plenty of climate change denialists on HN it's not exactly a radical or fringe position here. Do you want someone to try to refute these points? You could do it yourself in a few days of targeted reading, but you'd need to leave behind your confidence in your junior high "you can't have it both ways" understanding of scientific methods.
Climate change research is anomalously open and the methods highly scrutinized. That you're hung up on such basic points rather than the actual contentions within the field shows me you're not particularly well informed on the specifics. But I don't think this is a good forum to litigate these specifics, and I'm not sure that's what you're actually asking for here anyway.
Climate change research is anomalously open and the methods highly scrutinized. That you're hung up on such basic points rather than the actual contentions within the field shows me you're not particularly well informed on the specifics. But I don't think this is a good forum to litigate these specifics, and I'm not sure that's what you're actually asking for here anyway.
What a hostile and dismissive response because someone politely explains several points of worry that they have. HN is exactly the kind of place where some semblance of debate about complex subjects like this should exist, but some commentators, such as yourself apparently, seem to have gotten so emotionally hung up on disdain for any expression of doubt that the reaction is to simply put someone down with absurd phrases like "Don't believe it then, idk, what do you want from us?"
Us? Is there perhaps some specific committee here that's being burdened by too many honest questions?
Us? Is there perhaps some specific committee here that's being burdened by too many honest questions?
Right, HN is a place where a semblance of debate can exist. If you are polite enough, you can "just asking questions" any kind of horror you'd like. You will be given a credulous and polite audience to make your case to. I don't think that is actually debate most of the time, but it is certainly a semblance of one!
But this isn't a particularly complex subject at the level of sophistication they are questioning. It has been a mainstream and widely publicized issue for over a generation now. There are a handful of reasons why someone would be this invested in discussing this publicly, but not convinced by their own investigation so far. And yes, what I feel for those motivations is hostility. There's a "call the cops" button right there if it bothers you that much. Dan will probably finally ban me and you can get on with your semblance of debate.
But this isn't a particularly complex subject at the level of sophistication they are questioning. It has been a mainstream and widely publicized issue for over a generation now. There are a handful of reasons why someone would be this invested in discussing this publicly, but not convinced by their own investigation so far. And yes, what I feel for those motivations is hostility. There's a "call the cops" button right there if it bothers you that much. Dan will probably finally ban me and you can get on with your semblance of debate.
Too much emotion ans supposition. Not so much solid arguments. Sorry.
> I've heard people say that both warmer weather and colder weather are both evidence that the climate-change theory is right.
The evidence that the climate is warming isn't "warmer weather" or "colder weather". It's that average sea-temperatures around the world have been rising steadily, year-on-year. The predicted effect of that rising temperature on the weather is that we should expect more extreme weather: more floods, more droughts, colder cold-snaps.
It's no good looking at "weather" (e.g. California) to see whether global climate change is happening; weather is a local phenomenon. Mann is vindicated by the behaviour of the (global) climate, not the behaviour of the weather in San Francisco.
The evidence that the climate is warming isn't "warmer weather" or "colder weather". It's that average sea-temperatures around the world have been rising steadily, year-on-year. The predicted effect of that rising temperature on the weather is that we should expect more extreme weather: more floods, more droughts, colder cold-snaps.
It's no good looking at "weather" (e.g. California) to see whether global climate change is happening; weather is a local phenomenon. Mann is vindicated by the behaviour of the (global) climate, not the behaviour of the weather in San Francisco.
No, the current theory is that the 'climate change is accelerating' at a 'rate never seen before.' The evidence of this is usually a graph of temperature to a logarithmic timescale. Of course, the data isn't granular enough on a geological timescale to say that the temperature never changed at the rate it's changing today. Of course, that's if you believe the data they provide for today.
In regards to 1, I found this to be a helpful chart:
https://xkcd.com/1732/
https://xkcd.com/1732/
> 1) We know that the Earth was much warmer during the Great Warming Period. We also know that the Earth was much colder during the Ice Age. How do we know that right now it's because of CO2 and not because of some process by the planet?
Incoming solar electromagnetic radiation can be measured. Outgoing electromagnetic radiation can be measured. From the difference we can see that Earth is gaining energy.
We can also measure incoming and outgoing radiation at the surface, and at various layers of the atmosphere. We can see that when the surface is heated by absorbing incoming visible and ultraviolet solar radiation and then later re-radiates some of that energy it does so by radiating infrared.
We can measure the transparency of atmospheric gases to radiation and see that CO2 is transparent to that incoming visible and ultraviolet but is opaque to the outgoing infrared and hence blocks some energy that would have otherwise been radiated away into space. Increasing the CO2 levels increases how much of the outgoing infrared is blocked.
CO2 that comes from sources that are geologically old has a mix of C isotopes different from CO2 that comes from sources that aren't geologically old. From the isotope mix in the atmosphere and how it changed we can tell that almost all of the increase is from geologically old carbon sources.
Fossil fuels are geologically old sources. We know reasonably accurately the annual consumption of fossil fuels. The amount of CO2 from them is very close to the total amount of old source CO2 that is being added to the atmosphere yearly.
Hence we know that most of the CO2 increase comes from human activity.
Incoming solar electromagnetic radiation can be measured. Outgoing electromagnetic radiation can be measured. From the difference we can see that Earth is gaining energy.
We can also measure incoming and outgoing radiation at the surface, and at various layers of the atmosphere. We can see that when the surface is heated by absorbing incoming visible and ultraviolet solar radiation and then later re-radiates some of that energy it does so by radiating infrared.
We can measure the transparency of atmospheric gases to radiation and see that CO2 is transparent to that incoming visible and ultraviolet but is opaque to the outgoing infrared and hence blocks some energy that would have otherwise been radiated away into space. Increasing the CO2 levels increases how much of the outgoing infrared is blocked.
CO2 that comes from sources that are geologically old has a mix of C isotopes different from CO2 that comes from sources that aren't geologically old. From the isotope mix in the atmosphere and how it changed we can tell that almost all of the increase is from geologically old carbon sources.
Fossil fuels are geologically old sources. We know reasonably accurately the annual consumption of fossil fuels. The amount of CO2 from them is very close to the total amount of old source CO2 that is being added to the atmosphere yearly.
Hence we know that most of the CO2 increase comes from human activity.
> Really, you couldn't find any bad analysis to go after instead?
You're missing the point though. They're not looking for bad science, they're politically opposed to this particular outcome.
You're missing the point though. They're not looking for bad science, they're politically opposed to this particular outcome.
> This is a classic case of just how factually, scientifically, and morally bankrupt the money-backed climate denialism movement is.
Here was a huge dustup, lots of sizzle, tons and tons of examination, and the end result: it all held up!
Flamewar comment. The verdict of one jury (who very likely already made up their mind about climate change before the trial started) finding a single publication liable for defamation of one author on the _preponderance of the evidence_ bears very little bearing on the overall "climate denialism" debate.
Flamewar comment. The verdict of one jury (who very likely already made up their mind about climate change before the trial started) finding a single publication liable for defamation of one author on the _preponderance of the evidence_ bears very little bearing on the overall "climate denialism" debate.
You must be new to this, because denialist outrage over the "hockey stick" has been the core, or quite honestly the only, numerically base objection that I have experienced.
And despite all this effort, quibbles around minor changes of statistical methods, in the end the hockey stick plot has been vindicated. And then impugned and vindicated again.
This defamation case is a cap on the whole sad saga, but it is completely representative of the whole thing. Denialism has no factual or scientific basis, and the defamation suit shows just how immoral the paid-for denialists are.
And despite all this effort, quibbles around minor changes of statistical methods, in the end the hockey stick plot has been vindicated. And then impugned and vindicated again.
This defamation case is a cap on the whole sad saga, but it is completely representative of the whole thing. Denialism has no factual or scientific basis, and the defamation suit shows just how immoral the paid-for denialists are.
> You must be new to this, because denialist outrage over the "hockey stick" has been the core, or quite honestly the only, numerically base objection that I have experienced.
Perhaps you are the new one?
Perhaps you are the new one?
This almost certainly gets reduced to a tiny amount. The jury awarded $1 in actual damages and $1m in punitive damages.
The Supreme Court has said punitive damages must bear a reasonable relationship to actual damages.
As a rule of thumb, 10:1 is usually unconstitutional. 1000000:1 is off the charts.
The Supreme Court has said punitive damages must bear a reasonable relationship to actual damages.
As a rule of thumb, 10:1 is usually unconstitutional. 1000000:1 is off the charts.
Yeah it seems extremely weird.
$1 in compensatory damages means the jury decided that yes it was technically defamation, but that it was literally the smallest, tiniest, itty-bittiest amount of defamation that is possible. That it did about the same amount of damage to the scientist's career and reputation, as if he'd ordered delivery and discovered a can of soda was missing.
The idea that you could do $1 of damage and your punishment is $1,000,000 is just nonsensical. Either it did extensive damage to his career (years' worth of salary lost) and a million dollars is appropriate additional punishment, or it didn't and he wins a dollar because he was defamed but it did virtually no damage and the defendants merely have to pay his court costs or something.
$1 in compensatory damages means the jury decided that yes it was technically defamation, but that it was literally the smallest, tiniest, itty-bittiest amount of defamation that is possible. That it did about the same amount of damage to the scientist's career and reputation, as if he'd ordered delivery and discovered a can of soda was missing.
The idea that you could do $1 of damage and your punishment is $1,000,000 is just nonsensical. Either it did extensive damage to his career (years' worth of salary lost) and a million dollars is appropriate additional punishment, or it didn't and he wins a dollar because he was defamed but it did virtually no damage and the defendants merely have to pay his court costs or something.
It’s just an unfortunate fact pattern. Compensatory damages are by design supposed to be a quantifiable number that you can directly point to on a ledger somewhere. Mann claims to have lost grants, and indisputably lost reputation, but has remained employed at a seemingly proper level throughout his career. Scientists don’t get kickbacks from grants, so no quantifiable losses _to Mann_ there. Loss of reputation is hard to quantify, though it is sometimes done by having a PR expert testify “this is how much it would cost to restore a person’s reputation to its previous state”, but considering Mann’s previous state was “unknown to the public”, that’s also tough to do. IIRC, Mann has had to have private security at various points, but that was paid for by his employer, so Mann can’t be compensated for it. It seems like in the absence of hard numbers like that, the jury decided to compensate using punitive rather than trying to make up a number, and no party is allowed to tell the jury that that will get struck down.
> Scientists don’t get kickbacks from grants
What? It was my impression that scientists draw salary directly out of the grant, and that many scientists do not earn any salary other than what comes out of their grants.
What? It was my impression that scientists draw salary directly out of the grant, and that many scientists do not earn any salary other than what comes out of their grants.
So Mann's salary is whatever, call it $500k/year, paid for by Penn State. He brings in grants to perform research that justify to Penn State why it's worth it to pay him that $500k/year (e.g. a $5M grant will include some amount for the PI + research assistants, some amount of lab spend, some amount of overhead to Penn State). If that grant doesn't materialize, Penn State is still on the hook for that $500k.
That's why it was tricky for Mann to prove damages here - Penn State was likely harmed, but Penn State didn't sue.
That's why it was tricky for Mann to prove damages here - Penn State was likely harmed, but Penn State didn't sue.
You get a salary that can be paid from the grants, but if you get $1m or $20M in grants it's not going to be a change in your salary. At least until you negotiate a higher salary. And if you don't get the grants in the next cycle, the university will be paying your salary.
Isn't most reputational damage very hard to conclusively prove for normal people?
If someone posts all over Twitter that I'm a fraudster and an asshole, and I feel like I'm having fewer prospective customers choose me to tile their bathroom and I'm getting fewer dates on Grindr - am I supposed to be able to prove that, and the causality in court?
Even if I somehow have detailed records of exactly how all of my dates have gone and how many prospective clients I've given quotes to - maybe there's just another tile guy who started asking for less, and I'm getting fewer dates because I got this garish pink mohawk.
If someone posts all over Twitter that I'm a fraudster and an asshole, and I feel like I'm having fewer prospective customers choose me to tile their bathroom and I'm getting fewer dates on Grindr - am I supposed to be able to prove that, and the causality in court?
Even if I somehow have detailed records of exactly how all of my dates have gone and how many prospective clients I've given quotes to - maybe there's just another tile guy who started asking for less, and I'm getting fewer dates because I got this garish pink mohawk.
It may seem counterintuitive, but reputation damages are "actual" damages.
Yes, they are hard to prove, but the jury gets to take that into account. It could have picked almost any number ($1m, $10m, etc.) for reputation damages, but that would go in the "actual" damages line on the form.
The "punitive" damages really are just to discourage future bad conduct. And it will be difficult to support the idea that it takes a $1m penalty to prevent future bad conduct worth $1.
Yes, they are hard to prove, but the jury gets to take that into account. It could have picked almost any number ($1m, $10m, etc.) for reputation damages, but that would go in the "actual" damages line on the form.
The "punitive" damages really are just to discourage future bad conduct. And it will be difficult to support the idea that it takes a $1m penalty to prevent future bad conduct worth $1.
The legal situation notwithstanding I actually kinda agree with this. You have to pay $1e6 in punitive damages because you were actively trying to defame him and we want you to be sufficiently disincentivized from trying it again. But since you failed so spectacularly and didn't do any actual harm to him personally or his career here's $1 actual of damages.
Can you imagine if firing a gun into a crowd was only illegal if you actually hit someone? I think you have to take intent into account and here it's so blatantly purposeful.
Can you imagine if firing a gun into a crowd was only illegal if you actually hit someone? I think you have to take intent into account and here it's so blatantly purposeful.
No, because this is a civil suit, not a criminal one.
In a criminal one you are correct -- if you try to rob a bank and try but fail to kill a bunch of hostages, you're still going to jail for possibly the rest of your life.
But in a civil trial, the main point is the damages. Yes there can be a punitive element on top, but only if there are damages in the first place. If you attempt something bad but don't succeed, a civil suit can't punish you. It's not like a criminal trial.
In a criminal one you are correct -- if you try to rob a bank and try but fail to kill a bunch of hostages, you're still going to jail for possibly the rest of your life.
But in a civil trial, the main point is the damages. Yes there can be a punitive element on top, but only if there are damages in the first place. If you attempt something bad but don't succeed, a civil suit can't punish you. It's not like a criminal trial.
This is why I said the legal situation notwithstanding. I know this is how it works but I think it's nonsensical. The existence of punitive damages already throws out the idea that civil suits are just about real measured harm and includes the state overlaying elements of criminality on top of civil suits to punish wrongdoing. To me the only consistent stances are either not having punitive damages at all and accounting for intangibles directly in the real damages or having punitive damages that are totally orthogonal to the real harm. And just like criminal cases we can account for attempted X being less severe than X.
> The existence of punitive damages already throws out the idea that civil suits are just about real measured harm and includes the state overlaying elements of criminality on top of civil suits to punish wrongdoing.
No, it has nothing to do with elements of criminality.
It's the simple fact that if civil actions resulted in only restitution and nothing more, then everybody would be committing torts whenever they could, because sometimes you'll get away with it and sometimes you won't, but statistically you'll always come out ahead. Because sometimes people don't bring charges, sometimes they're too hard to prove, etc.
So the additional punishment is a way to correct that, to ensure that civil suits still function as deterrence. To ensure that if we only count the suits successfully brought and prosecuted, the tort-committer will still lose overall in the end.
There's nothing to do with criminality here, which is prosecuted by the state rather than by a private party.
No, it has nothing to do with elements of criminality.
It's the simple fact that if civil actions resulted in only restitution and nothing more, then everybody would be committing torts whenever they could, because sometimes you'll get away with it and sometimes you won't, but statistically you'll always come out ahead. Because sometimes people don't bring charges, sometimes they're too hard to prove, etc.
So the additional punishment is a way to correct that, to ensure that civil suits still function as deterrence. To ensure that if we only count the suits successfully brought and prosecuted, the tort-committer will still lose overall in the end.
There's nothing to do with criminality here, which is prosecuted by the state rather than by a private party.
Our only disagreement seems to be semantics.
> So the additional punishment is a way to correct that, to ensure that civil suits still function as deterrence
That's exactly what I mean by elements of criminality. You're not just saying that you harmed someone and have to make them whole but also that you did something wrong and have to be punished so you won't do it again. It's a fine by another name.
> So the additional punishment is a way to correct that, to ensure that civil suits still function as deterrence
That's exactly what I mean by elements of criminality. You're not just saying that you harmed someone and have to make them whole but also that you did something wrong and have to be punished so you won't do it again. It's a fine by another name.
> Can you imagine if firing a gun into a crowd was only illegal if you actually hit someone?
Yes, there is typically differences in law between reckless endangerment, manslaughter, premeditated murder, hate crime additions, etc.
If one were to balance benefit/harm, if the jury found that the would-be defamers benefited Mann personally and professionally in the manner of the "Streisand Effect," would Mann need to pay them?
Yes, there is typically differences in law between reckless endangerment, manslaughter, premeditated murder, hate crime additions, etc.
If one were to balance benefit/harm, if the jury found that the would-be defamers benefited Mann personally and professionally in the manner of the "Streisand Effect," would Mann need to pay them?
By my reading you're agreeing with me. Attempting murder is also a crime where here there isn't really "attempted defamation" despite the actions and intent of the would-be defamer being identical. If you believe any part of the justice system is supposed to act as a deterrent then sincerely trying and failing to harm someone else is an act worthy of punishment. You might argue that punitive damages ought to be collected by the state or destroyed but regardless their function is identical.
I don’t agree and not agree, just exploring the idea. I think the deterrent part of a justice system is to deter the person harmed from initiating or continuing a cycle of retribution that reduces civilization to ruin. If it could be a deterrent for people who do wrong, then it does a bad job of it. In reality the wrongs and rights people do are not their own, just random happenstance that configured a person to be in the position to act in a certain way at a certain time.
> an you imagine if firing a gun into a crowd was only illegal if you actually hit someone?
As the great Sideshow Bob put it [1]: "Attempted murder", now honestly, what is that!? Do they give a Nobel prize for "attempted" chemistry? Do they?
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AQQPNQ0PFSc
As the great Sideshow Bob put it [1]: "Attempted murder", now honestly, what is that!? Do they give a Nobel prize for "attempted" chemistry? Do they?
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AQQPNQ0PFSc
It seems like the main issue in the case was the completely uncalled for comparison of the climate scientist to a convicted child molester not disagreement with the results of his research. You have a 1st Amendment right to say that the earth is flat if you want to but you don't have the right to equate a scientist who says it isn't flat to Jerry Sandusky.
Is that true? At least based on the verdict, it seems like the factually incorrect claim that his work was "fraudulent" was punished more harshly than the child molester comparison.
I see the "fraudulent" thing as a hyperbolic way of saying "I strongly disagree" but I'd say that is a debatable point that reasonable people could disagree over.
In American political debate, it is common to throw around names like "communist" and "fascist" to refer to your political opponents but that doesn't mean most people actually think the Democrats and Republicans really are the Communists and the Fascists. I think it's dangerous rhetoric because some people might believe it and act accordingly while others might genuinely be totalitarians and stay under the radar but it's the political culture we have.
The child molester comparison does provide additional context in this case that makes it much easier to interpret "fraudulent" literally rather than as hyperbole.
In American political debate, it is common to throw around names like "communist" and "fascist" to refer to your political opponents but that doesn't mean most people actually think the Democrats and Republicans really are the Communists and the Fascists. I think it's dangerous rhetoric because some people might believe it and act accordingly while others might genuinely be totalitarians and stay under the radar but it's the political culture we have.
The child molester comparison does provide additional context in this case that makes it much easier to interpret "fraudulent" literally rather than as hyperbole.
Calling someone or something a fraud is different from simple disagreement.
Is the 1st amendment relevant here? I thought that was only about the state limiting your speech through law etc.
This was a civil case, not a criminal case. Steyn and Simberg were not prosecuted for their speech. They were asked to be held accountable for a tort. Different standard. That said, Steyn and Simberg would almost surely not be in the position that they find themselves now if they had simply refrained from using three words: Jerry, Sandusky, molested.
This is the state enforcing a penalty against a citizen - so yes, still relevant.
I'm not USAian, so I may be wrong; but I believe the 1st is about the state restricting speech, not about the courts enforcing penalties for civil damages.
Yeah that’s not right - the most prominent examples are about the state restricting speech, but the first amendment provides really broad protections to all manner of speech that would have to be refereed by ‘the state’.
Ken White (Popehat) is a prominent 1st amendment attorney and has written about this - the second bullet point applies;
https://web.archive.org/web/20240116140758/https://www.popeh...
Ken White (Popehat) is a prominent 1st amendment attorney and has written about this - the second bullet point applies;
https://web.archive.org/web/20240116140758/https://www.popeh...
Freedom of speech is not a constitutional amendment. It’s an American cultural value.
Freedom of speech is literally a constitutional amendment. It might also be an American cultural value, but it's absurd to say it's not a constitutional amendment.
Non-US person here so please excuse my ignorance. What amendment covers speech that doesn't involve the government. This is what I found on wikipedia about the 1st:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_...
> Although the First Amendment applies only to state actors, there is a common misconception that it prohibits anyone from limiting free speech, including private, non-governmental entities.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_...
> Although the First Amendment applies only to state actors, there is a common misconception that it prohibits anyone from limiting free speech, including private, non-governmental entities.
If you personally believe in freedom of speech, then you will give your political opponents a platform to disagree with you and debate them on the merits (if any) of their arguments. This principle of honor is what motivated the first amendment and so people confuse the principle with the amendment.
The amendment is just one minor manifestation of a very fundamental cultural value. People who do not believe in freedom of speech will often excuse curtailment of it when such curtailment is not prohibited by the amendment, as freedom of speech is just that one law. So no, the amendment LITERALLY is not what freedom of speech is.
Yeah but one of those we have encoded into law, and the other is just vibes. What you define as a freedom of speech and what I do may be different. How should we adjudicate which one is correct in terms of how our laws are enforced?
Where do you think laws come from?
Where they come from is irrelevant. What they are right now is.
Why?
Why not?
Because we can change the law based on our feelings of fairness so talking about where laws came from is not irrelevant as you bluntly asserted.
I thought you did have the right to say anything about any public figure?
The bar for a defamation lawsuit is higher for a public figure, but it still exists.
There's some precise way to say the same thing without falling afoul of it, even then.
There's some precise way to say the same thing without falling afoul of it, even then.
There's an interesting bit of complexity here though because a fair amount of Mann's status as a public figure is because of the climate-conspiracy community's singling him and his work out as a target to be attacked.
If a group elevates someone to be a public figure, and uses the fact that they're a public figure to defame them in ways that would not be permitted for non-public figures, should the group really be allowed the same protections that random members of the public have talking crap about people who are incidentally famous?
(I suppose it gets a bit complicated that Mann didn't retreat from the attacks, and used the notoriety thrust upon him to become a fairly prominent science communicator. Even so, giving his attackers any benefit of the doubt doesn't seem right somehow...)
If a group elevates someone to be a public figure, and uses the fact that they're a public figure to defame them in ways that would not be permitted for non-public figures, should the group really be allowed the same protections that random members of the public have talking crap about people who are incidentally famous?
(I suppose it gets a bit complicated that Mann didn't retreat from the attacks, and used the notoriety thrust upon him to become a fairly prominent science communicator. Even so, giving his attackers any benefit of the doubt doesn't seem right somehow...)
You can, and you won't get arrested. But if you are intentionally trying to cause harm by what you say, that's defamation.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment
If you are intentionally trying to cause harm by saying something that is provably false and succeed at causing harm, that's defamation. There are four tests and you have to prove all of them:
> To prove prima facie defamation, a plaintiff must show four things: 1) a false statement purporting to be fact; 2) publication or communication of that statement to a third person; 3) fault amounting to at least negligence; and 4) damages, or some harm caused to the reputation of the person or entity who is the subject of the statement.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/defamation
> To prove prima facie defamation, a plaintiff must show four things: 1) a false statement purporting to be fact; 2) publication or communication of that statement to a third person; 3) fault amounting to at least negligence; and 4) damages, or some harm caused to the reputation of the person or entity who is the subject of the statement.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/defamation
> But if you are intentionally trying to cause harm by what you say, that's defamation.
Absolutely not. It can't be defamation unless it's untrue, and it also can't be defamation unless it's injurious to your target's reputation.
Absolutely not. It can't be defamation unless it's untrue, and it also can't be defamation unless it's injurious to your target's reputation.
Public figures have to prove "actual malice" (a technical legal term- don't use the casual conversation definition for those words) in order to get libel, which is a much higher bar than us regular schmoe's have to clear. But it still exists.
Interesting take by a scientist who was a witness in this trial: https://rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/false-equivalence
I think this is interesting to read and constructive for the discussion, but "a scientist who was a witness" is a fairly misleading description. This is not like an independent expert that was just called in for the trial, which is what I first thought when I read your description, this is someone with a very long (10+ year) history of personal conflict with Mann. That doesn't mean anyone should discount his opinion, but it's very important context for reading the post.
> As I said at the trial, Mann has not been the best colleague to me, but I am fine even so. Who knows what demons haunt him and why he behaves the way that he does. I do hope he can find peace at some point.
Clearly this person's perspective is driven by more than just being "a scientist".
> As I said at the trial, Mann has not been the best colleague to me, but I am fine even so. Who knows what demons haunt him and why he behaves the way that he does. I do hope he can find peace at some point.
Clearly this person's perspective is driven by more than just being "a scientist".
Thank you for sharing this. It's interesting to see this perspective.
mikeyouse(4)
Link to Michael Mann's team's statement:
https://bsky.app/profile/michaelemann.bsky.social/post/3kkws...
https://bsky.app/profile/michaelemann.bsky.social/post/3kkws...
EDIT: I want to add that man made climate change needs to be addressed and the defendant is objectively opposing this. That said, the great HL Menchin once said “The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one’s time defending scoundrels.”
Concluding that scientific research is fraudulent because you have you own reasons to believe its conclusions are false can’t be defamation without compromising free scientific inquiry. Even if your reason for concluding its fraudulent is because you believe in a flat Earth, courts are not the venue to resolve questions of scientific debate. That is a can of worms that should never be opened lest we find ourselves in a new Lysenkoism.
Concluding that scientific research is fraudulent because you have you own reasons to believe its conclusions are false can’t be defamation without compromising free scientific inquiry. Even if your reason for concluding its fraudulent is because you believe in a flat Earth, courts are not the venue to resolve questions of scientific debate. That is a can of worms that should never be opened lest we find ourselves in a new Lysenkoism.
There's a difference between concluding that scientific research is wrong and concluding that it is fraudulent. The latter is a claim about the character of the scientist involved, alleging them to have taken unethical if not illegal action. If that is provably false then it can certainly rise to the level of defamation.
What's illegal about torturing data?
It may or may not be illegal (it probably would be in the case of fraudulently obtained grant funding), but academic fraud is career-ending. It is a very serious accusation. Besides, you are completely misunderstanding how defamation works. Defamation does not require that an allegation of a crime. Heck, there's even a term for this kind of thing: defamation of character.
https://www.alllaw.com/articles/nolo/civil-litigation/defama...
Another term you might want to look up is "Dunning-Kruger."
https://www.alllaw.com/articles/nolo/civil-litigation/defama...
Another term you might want to look up is "Dunning-Kruger."
Really? What about Francesca Gino who is at Harvard https://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Pages/profile.aspx?facId=271812 and has even fraud and retractions on her Wikipedia? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francesca_Gino
Still a teacher at Harvard and filed a frivolous suit of defamation to the detriment of data conda.
I see no evidence that data fraud is "career ending" and the snark about dunning Kruger is fitting for your comment.
I see no evidence that data fraud is "career ending" and the snark about dunning Kruger is fitting for your comment.
Indeed. It seems fraud is table stakes at this point.
Typically however, climate 'scientists' abstract their fraud. They take raw data, fit it to their 'model', and then produce a conclusion. Sometimes they get over zealous, and manipulate the raw data, like the NOAA was caught doing.
Typically however, climate 'scientists' abstract their fraud. They take raw data, fit it to their 'model', and then produce a conclusion. Sometimes they get over zealous, and manipulate the raw data, like the NOAA was caught doing.
There is two problems here :
1- there is a difference between being wrong and being fraud. Einstein was wrong in a paper claiming that gravitational waves are not real (he was convinced later it is). He did not fabricate anything in this work. He did not invent equations, made up observation data ...etc.
2- You are talking about conclusions and belief. Here is the problem, there is a scientific method. If you want to draw conclusions, then you have to follow that. You provide evidence. If you think this is fraud because the conclusion doesn't fit then you need to argue with better models/data or interpretation but not just based on final result that you don't like.
If you believe that everything contradicts flat earth is fraudulent then you are basically making up stuff and you don't have proof and this is defamation not science.
1- there is a difference between being wrong and being fraud. Einstein was wrong in a paper claiming that gravitational waves are not real (he was convinced later it is). He did not fabricate anything in this work. He did not invent equations, made up observation data ...etc.
2- You are talking about conclusions and belief. Here is the problem, there is a scientific method. If you want to draw conclusions, then you have to follow that. You provide evidence. If you think this is fraud because the conclusion doesn't fit then you need to argue with better models/data or interpretation but not just based on final result that you don't like.
If you believe that everything contradicts flat earth is fraudulent then you are basically making up stuff and you don't have proof and this is defamation not science.
If you criminalize people’s incorrect beliefs then you are doing politics and not science.
You can have a belief that this is wrong result based on nothing. If you want to say that this is fraudulent then you have to prove that this is fraud. There is a difference as I said in my comment.
Thats not how anything in science works. You should be able to express your beliefs without having absolute proof and get fined if a court doesn't agree with you.
Saying “this is wrong” is very different from saying “this is fraud”. Why is it so hard for you to tell the difference?
You never even need to engage with the question of whether something is fraud when disputing something.
If you say that there are 75 million people living in Germany I don’t need to call you a lier or a fraud to say that you are wrong and dispute your statement. That‘s just not necessary. I can just point at this website https://www.destatis.de/EN/Themes/Society-Environment/Popula... and say you are wrong. What do I care whether you simply misremembered, go wrong information from someone else and believed them or are actively lying.
You never even need to engage with the question of whether something is fraud when disputing something.
If you say that there are 75 million people living in Germany I don’t need to call you a lier or a fraud to say that you are wrong and dispute your statement. That‘s just not necessary. I can just point at this website https://www.destatis.de/EN/Themes/Society-Environment/Popula... and say you are wrong. What do I care whether you simply misremembered, go wrong information from someone else and believed them or are actively lying.
Actually if we are talking about science and not freedom of speech. Technically you are wrong, to work in science you have to follow scientific method and publish your conclusions with your methods, data and models.. etc. You can say whatever you want within this framework. A significant portion of the publications in any field is found wrong later sometimes by the authors themselves. But claiming that a work is fraud is not ab opinion. Actually even disagreeing between actual scientists usually comes in form of other work proving the other work is wrong.
Welcome to the scientific community.
Welcome to the scientific community.
Correct. And 99% of climate change denial is politics and not science.
Right, as is fining them millions of dollars for disagreeing with you. I’m honestly fine with that, my complaint is the hypocrisy of conflating political actions with science.
I really wonder if you read the article or not. This is not about disagreement or opinions. This is about fraud claims
> with skeptics claiming Mann manipulated data. Investigations by Penn State and others found no misuse of data by Mann, but his work continued to draw attacks, particularly from conservatives.
As an example. You solved a problem and I see that you solution is wrong (whether I am correct or not ia irrelevant) I would say you are wrong because you did this and that. I will not say that you are wrong because you have cheated unless I have a proof that you actually cheated (i.e data manipulation)
> with skeptics claiming Mann manipulated data. Investigations by Penn State and others found no misuse of data by Mann, but his work continued to draw attacks, particularly from conservatives.
As an example. You solved a problem and I see that you solution is wrong (whether I am correct or not ia irrelevant) I would say you are wrong because you did this and that. I will not say that you are wrong because you have cheated unless I have a proof that you actually cheated (i.e data manipulation)
Don’t be coy. This isn’t about one academic falsely accusing another of faking a specific measurement. This is a political activist calling an entire field of research fraudulent because its conclusions don’t conform to his political beliefs. Its outrageous and indefensible but living in a free country means people are allowed to believe and express outrageous and indefensible things.
Are you unaware/pretending to be unaware that words are tools that can be used to commit crimes, or do you sincerely believe that any words that can be possibly strung together are or should be protected free speech that supersedes all other rights of others and legal responsibilities of yours? What is it about saying the word "politics" that erases all of that?
Here was a huge dustup, lots of sizzle, tons and tons of examination, and the end result: it all held up! There's a looooot of stuff in all of science that could be proven to be wrong, so going after something so vigorously, and not having anything to show for it at the end is absolutely sad. Really, you couldn't find any bad analysis to go after instead?
It's quite likely that all of climate science is of much much higher quality than the typical science that makes it into the newspapers. What other body of science has something like the IPCC which works so hard to review and summarize the latest knowledge?
Reminds me of that physicist who started the BEST effort around temperature readings. He thought "I'm a physicist, and there's so much noise about sloppy climate science, I'll go clean it up and show these people how real analysis is done," and then just came up with exactly the same results that the climate scientists had done. But now, since it was from a physicist at a tier 1 institution, it was finally good work...