4/15/2024 0 Comments Motion to dismiss defimation dc![]() ![]() The court also denied Mann’s motion for summary judgment on the issue of whether statements in the blog post were false. The court denied a motion by the author of the blog post on the National Review’s website for summary judgment on the issues of protected speech concerning public opinions, actual malice, truth, and whether Mann should be awarded damages. The court denied summary judgment on the issue of whether the article was false.ĭefendant Mark Steyn's motion for summary judgment denied and plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment denied, in part, as to falsity as it applies to defendant Steyn. the publisher of the other blog.) The court said this failure to establish actual malice was the result of the nature of the blog, which was “designed for low-effort management on the part of CEI, where outside writers enjoy a platform for their opinions, with only cursory review by a relatively low-ranking CEI employee prior to publication.” With respect to the author of the post on CEI’s blog, the court found that Mann offered “significant evidence” that would allow a reasonable jury to find that the author acted with actual malice. The court found, however, that Mann failed to offer evidence establishing that Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI)-which published one of the blogs-acted with “actual malice.” (The court made a similar ruling in March 2021 with respect to National Review, Inc. In climate scientist Michael Mann’s defamation lawsuit against individuals and organizations that published blog posts that characterized his work as fraudulent and attributed misconduct to him, a District of Columbia Superior Court denied summary judgment motions by the defendants on the issue of the individual authors’ “actual malice” and by Mann on the issue of the falsity of the blog posts. Court Said Climate Scientist Provided Sufficient Evidence of Actual Malice for Blog Authors but Not for Publisher. ![]() Defendants' motion for summary judgment granted in part, as it relates to claims against Competitive Enterprise Institute, and denied, in part, as it relates to claims against Rand Simberg, and plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment against the Competitive Enterprise Institute and Rand Simberg on the issue of falsity, and motion to strike their affirmative defense that their statements were not “substantively false” denied.ĭ.C.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |