Trump must pay E. Jean Carroll over $83 million in defamation damages, jury rules
NBCJAN 2024
Climate Scientist Wins Defamation Suit
The Spin
Left narrative
Instead of congratulating, or at the very least accepting the iconic climate science discoveries of Michael Mann, Steyn and Simberg wrote inflammatory and defaming propaganda. Their columns and blog posts were clearly aimed at harming the reputation of a man whose work didn't align with their politics — but thankfully, the court brought these malicious efforts to light and rightly punished them.
Right narrative
Mann's controversial methods for creating the "hockey stick" graph were critiqued by many people at the time this case began — and in response, Mann himself used character assassination tactics to go after them. As for Simberg, what he did was simply wonder whether Penn State was covering for Mann the same way they did for their football coach. Mann is not infallible and deserves to be questioned.
Narrative C
Whatever side you're on, the defamation aspect of this case is over. The question that will be litigated next is whether the punitive damages were excessive. Supreme Court precedent shows that million-dollar punitive damages alongside thousand-dollar compensatory damages — a 1,000-1 ratio — do not meet the constitutional "due process" threshold.