Do you have some dependable source that says otherwise?
I also have the following from:
DC Court Grants Summary Judgment for CEI In Michael Mann Defamation Suit
Today's decision was not a total loss for Mann, however, as the
court denied the motion for summary judgment with respect to Simberg, who authored the original post.
Early on in the opinion the court noted that "evidence of 'personal spite, ill will or intention to injure on the part of the writer'" is generally insufficient, by itself, to support a claim of actual malice. As the court cautioned, "Some circumstances may justify reliance on evidence of ill-will, but only where the probative value of that evidence will outweigh the risk that 'such evidence will chill honestly believed speech.'" Nonetheless, the court later concluded that summary judgment should be denied because Mann offered "significant evidence that Mr. Simberg held ill-will for Plaintiff and that he was zealous in advancing his side of the climate change debate," and that such evidence could suffice to establish actual malice in front of a jury. I would not be surprised if Simberg appeals on this point.
Mann also prevailed against defendant Mark Steyn in a separate opinion denying Steyn's motion for summary judgment. This was in a separate opinion because
Steyn went his own way in this litigation some time ago.
Have you got a source saying the court ruled in Steyn or Simberg's favor? If not, you're the one whose dreaming.
insideclimatenews.org
threadreaderapp.com
