Skip to content

Call To Arms: @MarkSteynOnline Needs Our Support

27 January 2014 @ 20:48

Mark Steyn is in the fight of our lives.

Yes, you read that right – it is not a typo.

As you may have heard, Mr. Steyn is being sued by Climate Specialist and fiction writer Michael Mann.

The suit was filed over a year ago against MS and National Review.

The Quislings over at NR [yeah, I said it] recently put on their best turncoat costumes and now Mr. Steyn is fighting alone and without a lawyer.

As he wrote recently:

…I’m not the first to discover too late that the American court system is no place for wee unsuspecting foreigners. Although I was the only one on the NR side who’s actually won a free-speech battle (and so decisively that the law was eventually repealed), I was prevailed upon through the course of last year to leave it to the experts. The result is that we blew through half a million bucks, and have nothing to show for it – other than what even Judge Weisberg calls a “convoluted procedural history” that utterly buried the real issues at the heart of the case.

As readers may have deduced from my absence at National Review Online and my termination of our joint representation, there have been a few differences between me and the rest of the team. The lesson of the last year is that you win a free-speech case not by adopting a don’t-rock-the-boat, keep-mum, narrow procedural posture but by fighting it in the open, in the bracing air and cleansing sunlight of truth and justice.

NR’s behavior in this case has, for me, been the final nail in the coffin regarding their death as a relevant voice for conservative thought, as far as I’m concerned.  As MS points out:

…If you are only a print subscriber (as opposed to an Internet reader) [of National Review], you will have no idea that NATIONAL REVIEW is in the midst of a big free-speech battle on one of the critical public-policy issues of our time. There have been no cover stories, no investigative journalism, no eviscerating editorials. NR runs specialized blogs on both legal matters and climate change, yet they too have been all but entirely silent. I assume, from this lonely outpost on NR’s wilder shores, that back at head office they take the view that it’s best not to say anything while this matter works its way through the courts. In other words, a law explicitly intended to prevent litigious bullies from forcing their victims to withdraw from “public participation” has resulted in the defendants themselves voluntarily withdrawing from “public participation.” That’s nuts.

Those in charge of National Review have surrendered without a fight and allowed themselves to be subjected to Spinal Bypass Surgery by the Left.

But Mark Steyn is determined to fight this necessary battle and not leave the field to the forces of Tyranny:

…it is now necessary to bring this thing to trial and for Dr Mann to lose, and be seen to lose. If he gets away with just another case in which he threatens somebody and runs up their legal bills but is never actually forced to court and on to the stand, he will do it again, and again. The real threat is to his fellow scientists who are already queasy about his work but see what happens when, like Judith Curry, you question this insecure bully in public. They will remain silent, and vote for a quiet life.

So Dr Mann has to lose big. And I look forward to helping make that happen.

His fight is our fight.

If Mark Steyn can be silenced this way then none of us is safe from these kinds of abuses and usurpations.

You can help him out (1) by getting the message out about this attempt to violate the First Amendment and (2) by buying a gift certificate at his online store [he hasn’t set-up a legal defense fund just yet] and not redeeming it so that all the monies from it can be used to help Mark fight these rat bastards.

Like us, Mark Steyn has been declared an Outlaw.

And we have to hang together or most assuredly we shall hang separately.

Resistentiam Tyrannis nunc.
Resistentiam Tyrannis saecula.
PROSCRIPTUS!

Resistance to Tyranny now.
Resistance to Tyranny forever.
OUTLAWS!

 

2 Comments
  1. Laverne K. Adkins permalink
    29 January 2014 @ 20:35 20:35

    There are two basic responses to the harm principle as a means of limiting speech. One is that it is too narrow; the other is that it is too broad. This latter view is not often expressed because, as already noted, most people think that free speech should be limited if it does cause illegitimate harm. George Kateb (1996), however, has made an interesting argument that runs as follows. If we want to limit speech because of harm then we will have to ban a lot of political speech. Most of it is useless, a lot of it is offensive, and some of it causes harm because it is deceitful, and because it is aimed at discrediting specific groups. It also undermines democratic citizenship and stirs up nationalism and jingoism, which results in harm to citizens of other countries. Even worse than political discourse, according to Kateb, is religious speech; he claims that a lot of religious speech is hateful, useless, dishonest, and ferments war, bigotry and fundamentalism. It also creates bad self-image and feelings of guilt that can haunt persons throughout their lives. Pornography and hate speech, he claims, cause nowhere near as much harm as political and religious speech. His conclusion is that we do not want to ban these forms of speech and the harm principle, therefore, casts its net too far. Kateb’s solution is to abandon the principle in favor of almost unlimited speech.

Trackbacks

  1. Larwyn’s Linx: Leave Us (the Hell) Alone | Preppers Universe

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: