…have a right to free speech, too.
My sympathies as a fellow academic lie with Mann. And yet, as a believer in the First Amendment, I am troubled. I would rather that name-calling weren’t a regular part of our public debate, but it is. Indeed, I should note for the uninitiated that “molested and tortured data” is the sort of molested and tortured prose that academics commonly inflict on each other (and the great unwashed beyond the campus) in this unenlightened era of discourse.
I myself have been accused from time to time of lying about the evidence or reasons for my views on a variety of subjects. Ad-hominem charges have no legitimate place in the academy — always be wary of the scholar who attributes motive to another! — but I’m uneasy at the thought that even so scurrilous a claim should be actionable.
Of course we need defamation law. But our constitutional tradition correctly makes it difficult for public figures to prevail. Close cases should go to the critic, no matter how nasty or uninformed. The preservation of robust dissent allows no other result, and robust dissent is at the heart of what it means to be America.
I am old-fashioned enough to believe that the cure for bad speech is good speech. Yes, it’s a cliche. But it’s also a useful reminder. Nobody is forced to enter public debate. Once you’re there, it’s rough and tumble. Unfair attacks are as common as dew and sunshine, and everybody’s reputation takes a beating. That’s the price of freedom.
Yup.
For me, at least, the reason discourse is no longer civil is because I’ve been shut out of the debate for decades. When the universities, the media, the public school system and even some churches all disparage conservative ideas, the only way to fight back is with snark and sarcasm. Those on the left will claim that they are “reasonable”, but the dirty truth is that they are biased and even dictatorial.
I have zero, count that zero, leftist friends who have ever conceded one of their points. And ask any lefty what they think of CNN and they will tell you that it is balanced. That is a hint on the perception of lefties.
Why do you have leftist friends? Masochism?
I have not watched CNN in years. But last time I watched it was less atrocious than Fox News. At least they don’t shut their interviewees by shouting louder and louder their canned diatribe. If the other person shouts back then they just cut them off and repeat their canned diatribe. Why bother interviewing anyone at all if you don’t want to hear what they have to say?
I could argue that using lies in personal attacks on people and using lies to question their integrity is more about bullying and attempting to suppress free speech, just lies and bullying to try to shut people up.
Sadly, the fact that you could argue something doesn’t magically render it a good argument.
I’m still weighing it up, bullying like that does happen with the aim of suppressing other peoples voices, it’s especially effective if, through destroying a persons reputation, you can convince your audience that your victim should be ignored.
A video of teachers blowing up children who don’t agree with global warming isn’t bullying, is it?
A video of teachers blowing up children who don’t agree with global warming isn’t bullying, is it?
I have to disagree with you, that sounds like bullying to me.
It is possible to disagree with what Rand wrote and disagree with Mann for bringing suit.
I read your comments in the context that they can apply to both parties and because they are both public figures they have means and ability to defend themselves in the public arena.
“and because they are both public figures they have means and ability to defend themselves in the public arena.”
Sorry that last part is what I think. Didn’t mean to attribute it to you.
From here it sometimes seems that so many dishonest claims are fired back and forth between left and right in America that the result isn’t greater free speech, it’s more who can get away with the most lies wins.
Democracy works best with an informed public, with a large percentage of the population being swing voters, by demonizing each other with lies the left and right it sometimes seems to me that America is in the process of splitting itself down the middle.
American tort liability for defamatory speech or publications traces its origins to English common law. For the first two hundred years of American jurisprudence, the basic substance of defamation law continued to resemble that existing in England at the time of the Revolution.
. . . .
The Supreme Court’s ruling in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964)[41] fundamentally changed American defamation law. The case redefined the type of “malice” needed to sustain a libel case. Common law malice consisted of “ill-will” or “wickedness”. Now, a public officials seeking to sustain a civil action against a tortfeasor needed to prove by “clear and convincing evidence” actual malice.
. . . . .
While actual malice standard applies to public officials and public figures,[163] in Philadelphia Newspapers v. Hepps (1988),[164] the Court found that, with regard to private individuals, the First Amendment does “not necessarily force any change in at least some features of the common-law landscape.”[165] In Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. v. Greenmoss Builders, Inc. (1985)[166] the Court ruled that “actual malice” need not be shown in cases involving private individuals, holding that “[i]n light of the reduced constitutional value of speech involving no matters of public concern…the state interest adequately supports awards of presumed and punitive damages – even absent a showing of ‘actual malice.'”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Defamation
So I think it’s doubtful that those who wrote the 1st amendment had the 1964 interpretation in mind, America doesn’t need to have the ability of public figures to defend themselves against defamation impeded to have the free speech afforded by the first amendment for its first ~170 years.
If Prof Mann were to ask me, I’d suggest ignoring Rand would have been the
better course. Getting into a wrestling match with a pig makes the pig
happy and covers you in filth.
Who are you alleging has lied? What is your evidence? Should you be allowed to make such a scurrilous accusation? Should Rand sue you for making it?
Addressed to Andrew W @ January 31, 2014 at 12:25 pm above.
I’m not talking specifically about this case.
Riiiiiiigggggghhhhhhtt
He’s probably talking about the case where Michael Mann accused Barack Obama of colluding with big oil.
Guardian link.
He also removed any doubt that he’s a willing public figure, greatly hurting his chances in court.
Frankly, I think what really made Mann upset is the comparison that was made that he is the pedophile of climate science, since he is at Penn State like Jerry Sandusky.
Bob Clark