OPINION:
Free speech is under unprecedented assault from a courthouse right here in the District. Last week, a Superior Court judge allowed a $1 million jury verdict against authors who dared to question the “scientific consensus” on climate. The freedom of Americans to think for themselves is at stake.
Climate scientist Michael Mann went after the Competitive Enterprise Institute’s Rand Simberg and columnist Mark Steyn because the pair’s prose hurt Mr. Mann’s feelings. Their opinion pieces pulled no punches, informed as they were by leaked email in which Mr. Mann and a group of climate scientists discussed “Mike’s Nature trick” used to “hide the decline” in global temperatures.
The existence of a decline undermined the global warming narrative, which was illustrated in Mr. Mann’s famous “hockey stick” graph depicting a precipitous rise in temperatures in the modern era.
Judge Alfred S. Irving Jr., acting on instructions from the D.C. Court of Appeals, ruled a jury “could determine that CEI recklessly disregarded the truth” simply because “several investigatory reports into the Climategate emails and their findings” absolved Mr. Mann of allegations that he manipulated data to achieve a desired result.
In other words, calling into question the legitimacy of an investigatory report exposes journalists to defamation claims. It would be left to a jury to decide whether calling such a report a whitewash or the tactics used to politicize the climate issue “deceptive” merits compensatory damages.
But not just any jury. Six men and women in the District of Columbia, where 95% of the jury pool either voted for President Biden or another leftist candidate, had a chance to impose some “justice” on these right-wing pundits. In Mr. Mann’s closing arguments, jurors were told their job was to defend science itself.
“These attacks on climate scientists have to stop, and you now have the opportunity,” attorney John Williams said before being cut off by an objection. The judge agreed the statement was out of order, but the jurors got the message nevertheless.
Even so, it’s telling that the jury awarded $1 in actual damages to Mr. Mann, confirming nobody ever believed the celebrity scientist was harmed by the mean words aimed his way. But the judge also instructed the jury to award “whatever sum you believe is reasonable” — regardless of the lack of injury — in punitive damages.
The resulting $1 million verdict against Mr. Steyn and $1,000 against Mr. Simberg is intended as a warning shot to dissuade writers from questioning the global warming narrative in the future. It is also a chilling precedent that cannot stand.
When the U.S. Supreme Court declined to intervene at an earlier stage of the case, Justice Samuel Alito thought the issue was too important to wait. He identified the problem of conducting politically charged cases in jurisdictions chosen because they have the “highest percentage” of sympathetic jurors, and the grave impact that the use of a rigged process can have on fundamental rights.
“If citizens cannot speak freely and without fear about the most important issues of the day, real self-government is not possible,” the justice concluded.
The Supreme Court needs to reverse this decision.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.