Mark Steyn and the First Amendment

Some of you, the informed ones, know who Mark Steyn is. He's an immigrant, a humorist, a wit, occasionally fills in for Rush Limbaugh, and I've seen him on Fox as a talking head. He's also being sued by an academic for not worshiping the climate gods, even after hacked documents showed him to be right.

Someone else made a joke about Michael E. Mann, a professor of meteorology at Pennsylvania State University and a climate activist, and Mann sued him and Steyn for calling his hockey stick graph "fraudulent." It was an opinion that should have been covered by the first amendment and should have been resolved with facts and data, but Mann won. So now it's going to full trial, costing the National Review millions of dollars. The Supreme Court has refused to hear it.

You need to pay attention because this is a case that will come after you. Academe, media, professional organizations, non-profits and leftist politicians are all colluding to force us to accept their religion of climate change. We all know climate changes, or Ohio would be uninhabitable. But in order to squeeze more taxes out of us, we have to bow to accepting the blame for it. More important is freedom of speech--that's priceless, not just an increase in taxes.

https://www.city-journal.org/national-review-first-amendment?

Using different words, titles, and scare quotes to tell the same story

Two sources, the Washington Times and Nature Magazine, both covered the case of Michael Mann and Climategate by Virginia's Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli. Mann, formerly of the University of Virginia, now at Pennsylvania State University, created the hockey stick graph which was published in Nature. Notice how differently the two sources cover a Virginia Supreme Court decision. Both articles say Mann has been cleared of academic misconduct, but that's not what this case is about--it's about misuse of state funds and Cuccinelli's authority to investigate.

Va. Supreme Court denies Cuccinelli’s bid for climatologist’s emails
The Virginia Supreme Court on Friday rejected a bid by Virginia Attorney General Kenneth T. Cuccinelli II to acquire records about a former University of Virginia climatologist. Mr. Cuccinelli, under the Virginia Fraud Against Taxpayers Act, issued two civil investigative demands (CID), akin to subpoenas, in 2010 seeking records related to Michael Mann, who is associated with the infamous “hockey stick” global warming graph charting a rapid rise in the temperature of the earth’s surface during the 20th century. . . the Virginia Supreme Court in a Friday opinion concluded that Mr. Cuccinelli does not have the authority to issue the demands to the University of Virginia at all.
Radio column, Washington Times

Virginia high court rejects case against Mann
The Virgina Supreme Court on Friday tossed out an investigation by the state’s conservative attorney general, Ken Cuccinelli, into Michael Mann, the former University of Virginia climatologist whose work on the now-famous hockey-stick graph (originally published in Nature) has become a lightning rod for climate skeptics as well as the subject of a new book. . . In a dense and conflicted 26-page ruling (pdf) . . . Virginia’s high court ruled that the university is not a “person” and thus is not subject to Cuccinelli’s demands under the state’s Fraud Against Taxpayers Act.
Nature blog

First, notice the difference in headlines--in one the court denies bid to emails, in the other it rejects case against Mann. In the one sympathetic to Cuccinelli, his surname is used, and in the one sympathetic to Mann, his surname is used.

1) rejected a bid to acquire records or tossed out an investigation

2) Virginia Attorney General Kenneth T. Cuccinelli II or state’s conservative attorney general, Ken Cuccinelli

3) Michael Mann, who is associated with the infamous “hockey stick” global warming graph or Michael Mann, the former University of Virginia climatologist whose work on the now-famous hockey-stick graph. . .

4) The Virginia Supreme Court concluded that Mr. Cuccinelli does not have the authority to issue the demands to the University of Virginia at all or Virginia’s high court ruled that the university is not a “person” and thus is not subject to Cuccinelli’s demands