Category Archives: Uncategorized

US climate scientist Michael Mann won his longstanding libel suit against right-wing climate deniers on Feb. 8, 2024, with a jury award of $1 million in puntive damages. 

The lawsuit began in 2012, when Mann accused Rand Simberg, a former adjunct scholar at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, and Mark Steyn, a contributor to National Review, of defamation when they alleged that his work was so fraudulent it was like child molestation.     

Scientists see  the verdict “as a warning to those who attack scientists working in controversial fields, including climate science and public health,” according to  Nature magazine.   

The question in libel is whether the defendant knowingly published a falsehood or acted in reckless disregard for the truth.  In testimony,  Simberg and Steyn both insisted that they do not agree with Mann’s climate science, so the question was whether or not they were reckless.

“The trial transported observers back to 2012, the heyday of the blogosphere and an era of rancorous polemics over the existence of global warming, what the psychology researcher and climate misinformation blogger John Cook called “a feral time,” said a New York Times article.

A federal court opinion from 2016  located here: Competitive Enterprise Institute v Mann.   The 2024 decision is not yet on Nexis, SCOTUS blog, or other legal sources. Also see Alito Dissent from denial of cert, 2021.

These four communications cases have been granted cert. for the current Supreme Court term. Cases will be heard through the fall and winter, with opinions published  between April and June.

Moody v Netchoice is a pending Supreme Court case involving state  government attempts to stop censorship by social media companies.  At issue is (1) Whether the First Amendment prohibits a state (specifically Florida and Texas) from requiring that social-media companies host third-party communications, and from regulating the time, place, and manner in which they do so; and (2) whether the First Amendment prohibits a state from requiring social-media companies to notify and provide an explanation to their users when they censor the user’s speech.  The state laws were blocked in a lower court but revived in a federal appeals court, on Sept. 16, 2022. The Supreme Court granted cert. in May 2023 for the cases.

An early take on how Moody might be decided shows up in a federal case,   Republican National Committee v Google, which was dismissed in favor of Google on Aug. 24, 2023.  The RNC alleged that Google had been intentionally misdirecting its emails to Gmail users’ spam folders at the end of each month “to secretly suppress the political speech and income of one major political party.”  The court said the RNC had not proven bad faith and  that, in any event, that would have been protected by section 230 of the CDA.

O’Connor-Ratcliff v. Garnier. When a public official blocks someone from their social media personal, unofficial social media account, is that an act of censorship prohibited by the First Amendment?

Vidal v. Elster,   Does the the refusal to register a trademark under 15 U.S.C. § 1052(c) violates the free speech clause of the First Amendment when the mark contains criticism of a government official or public figure.

MORE: See the SCOTUS Blog 

Protest in Hong Kong, March 2023, held behind “crime tape.”  (Associated Press)

According to the Hong Kong Democracy Council,  authorities have jailed more than 1,500 political prisoners since 2019, half of whom are under the age of 25. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/07/01/hong-kong-china-crackdown-democracy/

This segment of The Problem with John Stewart was broadcast before the Fox – Dominion settlement      announced April 19, 2023.

Federal agencies will fight online harassment  across four main lines of effort, the Biden administration said March 3, 2023. These are prevention, survivor support, accountability, and research, according to a White House announcement.

Since its launch, the Task Force  to Address Online Harassment and Abuse has heard from hundreds of stakeholders—survivors, advocates, parents, educators, law enforcement, medical and legal professionals, and researchers—who discussed the significant harm caused by online harassment and abuse.

The Task Force is part of Biden’s call to action in the State of Union for solutions to address online safety, health, privacy, and accountability.

By Bill Kovarik  (“How a silent movie informs the current debate over the right to be forgotten.”  CC license. The Conversation) 

In 1915, Gabrielle Darley killed a New Orleans man who had tricked her into a life of prostitution. She was tried, acquitted of murder and within a few years was living a new life under her married name, Melvin. Then a blockbuster movie, “The Red Kimono,” splashed her sensational story across America’s silver screens.

The 1925 film used Darley’s real name and details of her life taken from transcripts of the murder trial. She sued for invasion of privacy and won.

In deciding in favor of Darley, a California court said that people have a right to rehabilitation. “We should permit [people] to continue in the path of rectitude rather than throw [them] back into a life of shame or crime,” the court said. It is a sentiment that is harder to put into practice today, when information is much more readily available. Nonetheless, policymakers and media outlets are looking at the issue.

As a scholar of media history and law, I see Darley’s story as more than an interesting slice of legal and cinematic history. Her case provides an early example of how private people struggle to escape their pasts and how the idea of privacy is linked to rehabilitation.

Continue reading →

By Bill Kovarik
Published in The Conversation, Jan. 15, 2021
Creative Commons license for non-profit republication.

In speeches filled with hatred and falsehoods, a public figure attacks his enemies and calls for marches on Washington. Then, after one particularly virulent address, private media companies close down his channels of communication, prompting consternation from his supporters and calls for a code of conduct to filter out violent rhetoric.

Sound familiar? Well, this was 1938, and the individual in question was Father Charles E. Coughlin, a Nazi-sympathizing Catholic priest with unfettered access to America’s vast radio audiences. The firms silencing him were the broadcasters of the day.

As a media historian, I find more than a little similarity between the stand those stations took back then and the way Twitter, YouTube and Facebook have silenced false claims of election fraud and incitements to violence in the aftermath of the siege on the U.S. Capitol – noticeably by silencing the claims of Donald Trump and his supporters.

A radio ministry

Coughlin’s Detroit ministry had grown up with radio, and, as his sermons grew more political, he began calling President Franklin D. Roosevelt a liar, a betrayer and a double-crosser. His fierce rhetoric fueled rallies and letter-writing campaigns for a dozen right-wing causes, from banking policy to opposing Russian communism. At the height of his popularity, an estimated 30 million Americans listened to his Sunday sermons.

Continue reading →

Parents of children killed at the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting on December 14, 2012 won a libel suit yesterday (June 17, 2019) against the authors of a book that claimed it never happened.

It was a victory for parents who have been besieged with hate mail and death threats from alt-right conspiracy theorists and hoaxers. A similar lawsuit against Alex Jones and his program “InfoWars” is still being contested in court. New York Magazine had a good overview of the basic issues in Sept. 2016.

The question in law is whether public figures like the Sandy Hook parents can recover for expressions of opinion, and whether it is a matter of fact or opinion to say that no children were killed at Sandy Hook and that parents are part of a left-wing conspiracy. First Amendment Watch has a good set of resources and a law student’s guide to the issues.

New York Times Publisher A.G. Sulzberger  wrote this on Feb. 20, 2019: America’s founders believed that a free press was essential to democracy because it is the foundation of an informed, engaged citizenry. That conviction, enshrined in the First Amendment, has been embraced by nearly every American president. Thomas Jefferson declared, “The only security of all is in a free press.” John F. Kennedy warned about the risks to “free society without a very, very active press.” Ronald Reagan said, “There is no more essential ingredient than a free, strong and independent press to our continued success.”

All these presidents had complaints about their coverage and at times took advantage of the freedom every American has to criticize journalists. But in demonizing the free press as the enemy, simply for performing its role of asking difficult questions and bringing uncomfortable information to light, President Trump is retreating from a distinctly American principle. It’s a principle that previous occupants of the Oval Office fiercely defended regardless of their politics, party affiliation, or complaints about how they were covered.

The phrase “enemy of the people” is not just false, it’s dangerous. It has an ugly history of being wielded by dictators and tyrants who sought to control public information. And it is particularly reckless coming from someone whose office gives him broad powers to fight or imprison the nation’s enemies. As I have repeatedly told President Trump face to face, there are mounting signs that this incendiary rhetoric is encouraging threats and violence against journalists at home and abroad.

Through 33 presidential administrations, across 167 years, The New York Times has worked to serve the public by fulfilling the fundamental role of the free press. To help people, regardless of their backgrounds or politics, understand their country and the world. To report independently, fairly and accurately. To ask hard questions. To pursue the truth wherever it leads. That will not change.