A defamation lawsuit threatens the very existence of the conservative National Review, a magazine that has provided a forum for strident right-wing rhetoric in recent years but also some valuable conservative points of view. “…the magazine continues to employ several gifted writers (among them Ramesh Ponnuru) who foster thoughtful discussion of policy and ideology on the Right. Its contribution to that conversation would be missed,” writes Damon Linker, The Week, January 30, 2014. Climate scientist Michael Mann is suing the magazine and writer Mark Steyn who accused Mann of fraud. Steyn quoted another conservative who said Mann was “The Jerry Sandusky of climate science, except that instead of molesting children, he has molested and tortured data.” With losses of several million over the last few years, the magazine may not survive a hefty judgment against it or an expensive settlement.
With the case now nearing discovery phase and costing the magazine and Steyn considerable legal fees, Benjamin Weingarten, The Blaze, January 27, 2014, fears that there has already been a chilling of free speech. “…the way this case has played out, the punishment is already disproportionate, despite there being almost no progress in the case whatsoever,” writes Weingarten.
The defendants filed a notice of appeal of a recent ruling by a District of Columbia Superior Court judge against a motion to dismiss the case. Climate Science Watch , January 25, finds it curious that the defendants don’t seem thrilled about proceeding to discovery. “This might strike one as odd, since the defendants’ support subculture seems to think Prof. Mann’s case will be torn to pieces on discovery and that National Review and CEI [Competitive Enterprise Institute] will be able to demonstrate ‘truth’ as their defense on the defamation charge. Several commenters on previous posts on this case have taken that position,” writes Climate Science Watch.
Eugene Volokh, The Washington Post, January 30, 2014, points out that the heralding of the demise of the National Review ignores the fact that the magazine is protected by libel insurance.