OPINION
Craig Rucker
Craig Rucker is a co-founder of CFACT and currently serves as its president. Widely heralded as a leader in the free market environmental, think tank community in Washington, D.C., Rucker is a frequent guest on radio talk shows, written extensively in numerous publications, and has appeared in such media outlets as Fox News, OANN, Washington Times, The Wall Street Journal, and The Hill, among many others.
After over a decade of expensive litigation, the trial of climatologist Michael Mann against journalist Mark Steyn has finally come to trial.
Michael Mann, you will remember, is known for the UN’s infamous “hockey stick” temperature graph and the phrase “hide the decline,” which came to light in the “Climategate” emails.
Mann is suing Steyn for defamation over Steyn’s use and repetition of colourful language about Mann’s work and scientific ethics.
It came to light during the trial that Dr. Mann has paid nothing toward his very expensive legal fees. The fees have been paid by others who have not been named.
This has enabled Mann to freely pursue his apparent intention, which is to chill debate on climate and his conduct.
“Strategic lawsuits against public participation,” or “SLAPP suits,” aim to censor, intimidate, and silence critics by burdening them with the cost of a legal defence until they abandon their criticism or opposition.
CFACT is certainly among the critics that Mann hopes to intimidate.
Mark Steyn has chosen to represent himself for large portions of the trial. His rhetorical gifts are on full display.
What is actually on trial is free speech itself.
The famous Supreme Court precedent of NY Times v. Sullivan has long shielded journalists from attempts to chill speech by requiring plaintiffs to prove “actual malice,” meaning that the speaker knowingly or recklessly ignored the truth. Steyn was simply giving his opinions about Mann’s work — work which actually impacts U.S. and UN climate policy. One should think this debate would fall under the actual malice standard and shield Steyn’s right to speak.
Mann’s attorneys, however, slyly brought their suit before the Washington, D.C. Superior Court, a venue with judges and juries most favourable to their attempt.
Will Mark Steyn succeed in protecting the right of all of us to speak our minds on climate?
Head over to Steyn online as this fascinating trial winds up.
Let’s hope Mark Steyn is not forced to file a fascinating appeal.
