"Mann vs. Steyn"--The Latest Twist
"National Review"--"Conservative Inc"--Capitulates
Those conventional modern intellectuals who derogate plots in literature, asserting that “life isn’t like that”, are too myopic to see broader connections, in art and life. These connections are the links between and among ineluctable events that, in hindsight at the very least, were predictable to those cognizant of principles and essentials. The latest plot twist in the interminable Mann vs. Steyn free speech case is another example of all of the above. One of the essential facts it revealed is that conservatives are not consistent defenders of and warriors for freedom of speech. Fortunately, there is still at least one exception, but doughty, persistent advocates of free speech are rarer with every passing day.
I have written extensively about Mann vs. Steyn, which began in 2012 when Mark Steyn published a blog post at National Review Online’s “The Corner” titled “Football and Hockey”. Many more details are available at my previous posts and elsewhere. Briefly: Steyn quoted Rand Simberg, a writer for the Competitive Enterprise Institute, referring to climate scientist Michael Mann as “the Jerry Sandusky of climate science” for two reasons. One was for “torturing and molesting data”. The other was due to Mann being exonerated by now-disgraced former Pennsylvania State University President Graham Spanier. Spanier exonerated Mann of fraud in his famous “hockey stick” global warming graph, and he exonerated football coach Sandusky of child sexual assault. Simberg and Steyn both emphasized empathically that they were referring to accusations of Mann’s scientific misconduct only and were not accusing him of abusing human beings. (Steyn even stated, “Not sure I’d extend that metaphor all the way to the locker room showers …”) Steyn added that Mann’s famous hockey stick was fraudulent. Mann sued Steyn, Simberg, National Review, and the Competitive Enterprise Institute for defamation of character, loss of reputation, emotional distress, etc. The case was properly seen by many commenters as the most consequential free speech case in half a century.
Mann eventually won the trial (a “liberal” District of Columbia jury doubtlessly had much to do with that), but it was a Pyrrhic victory. After being awarded one million dollars from Steyn in “punitive damages” (unprecedented and almost certainly unconstitutional when the jury found Steyn liable for only one dollar in actual damages), the amount was reduced to five thousand on appeal. And Mann has been ordered to pay defendants’ court costs. (See the link for my last report on this ongoing circus.)
Yesterday, Melissa Howes at Steyn Online, in a piece titled “Conservative Inc Folds”, reported that National Review, the famous conservative publication and former publisher and ally of Steyn, has accepted an offer from Mann to release him from paying the publication’s legal fees in exchange for his dropping his ongoing litigation against them. She adds that this is a win-win situation for Mann and a lose-lose situation for the magazine. “In exchange for dropping the half million Mann was ordered to pay them, Mann will drop his appeal of the verdicts in their favor. In other words: Mann wins, NR loses.”
Howes goes on to briefly recount Steyn’s history with the publication and company, while noting that the details of their separation is a long story for another day. Steyn was a prolific, weekly contributor to the print magazine and website, including its “Happy Warrior” column. He headlined countless events for them (he was also a prolific public speaker and singer before illness, including three heart attacks, sidelined him). Howes notes, “so committed was Mark that he made his way to speak at a fundraiser for NR in Boston just one day after a car accident with a head injury and an excruciating case of tinnitus.”
What is the thanks Steyn received in return? Initially, they had the spine of a Steyn, with writer Rich Lowry responding to Mann’s demand for an apology with an op-ed titled “Get Lost”. Then, the magazine distanced itself from its writer, stating in a series of sophistic and casuistic legal briefs that they were not a publisher but a platform akin to a social media provider. As Steyn himself wrote: “For almost a decade, I have stood on the truth - and Rich Lowry and his guys never did, not in their court filings , but instead tossed spaghetti of sophistry at the walls hoping a strand or two would stick: Ooh, no, we’re not a publisher, just an Internet platform provider like Facebook, open to all; Steyn is nothing to do with us, just a guy who bust into the cockpit and flew the NR plane into the mountain; etc.” (Incidentally, Howard Stern, at least according to legend, once actually did something like that at Boston University’s student radio station WTBU, ensuring that its broadcasting frequency and influence would forever be reduced to nothing after the university retaliated and punished the station that had already suspended Stern, eventually diminishing my opportunities when I was a student broadcaster there in the 1990s—ensuring that I am still an obscure figure and not an “influencer” like Stern or Steyn. But that’s also a story for another day.) Many believe that Mann’s attorney’s flaunting of Lowry’s piece—which Steyn had nothing to do with—helped influence the jury to convict Steyn, with extra irony as the magazine had distanced itself from him.
While I am not that familiar with National Review, I am hardly surprised by their conduct.
Founded by the late William F. Buckley, Jr., National Review at least attempted to bring an intellectual framework to religious conservatism, something this culture—increasingly anti-intellectual on all sides—could have used had it been more honest and more effective. I have been antipathetic to it since I read about Buckley’s and company’s disgraceful commentary on Ayn Rand, a principled, consistent pro-liberty and pro-capitalist intellectual who properly wrote essays like “Conservatism: An Obituary”. Ronald Reagan admired that essay. Unfortunately, he learned nothing from it. Steyn, the only writer I ever read who was respectful to Rand in the publication, is the only reason I ever picked it up. Subsequently, I enjoyed some of Kevin Williamson’s pieces, but his radical empiricist, prolix prose style was one reason I stopped reading him (some of his less defensible positions was another). Steyn is certainly something of an intellectual despite (or because of) dropping out of his boarding school in Manchester, England. Like so many of this fading culture’s best prose writers—James Ellroy, Neil Peart, and Scott Holleran to name three—Steyn is a high school dropout. (Modern formal education and its inimical effect on writing quality is yet another topic for another day.) It is hardly surprising that the magazine that dismissed Rand’s principled criticisms of conservatism and her consistent, integrated, pro-reason philosophy would throw Steyn under the bus and try to defend itself with Pragmatist technicalities before taking a bad deal emboldening Mann. (Doubtless, there is some context I am missing, but it certainly looks like a mistake at best.) There is a lesson here, which Steyn likely learned many years ago.
Regardless of your opinion of Steyn and his opinions, this case, as I have argued, is about much more than climate change, environmentalism, etc. My disagreements with Steyn are irrelevant in this context. I regard him as an heroic figure fighting the most important battle of our time, a battle that affects all of us on a fundamental level, as writers and speakers but also as reasoning human beings who need free speech to make up our own minds. Howes wrote yesterday about Steyn’s disagreements with National Review brass about Donald Trump (Steyn is a supporter) and Phyllis Schafly (Steyn is an admirer). I am sympathetic to the magazine’s views on both figures, but those are irrelevant cavils in this context. What is essential is that Steyn is a stalwart defender of what he calls “near absolute free speech” who encourages (and engages in) robust debate and even invites criticism (at least to members of his Mark Steyn Club). His health and wealth have deteriorated, but he fights on, on principled grounds. National Review has been a rodent-like apologist for an otiose Republican Party base, helping contribute to the rise of their nemesis Trump and losing their greatest, most important, most trenchant writer in the process.
Hopefully, Steyn will prevail in his ongoing appeals, not only so I can argue with him when appropriate and continue to praise him when he’s right. The vestiges of liberty and the Age of Enlightenment, fading all around us, are on the line.
