Yesterday we updated you about a significant amicus curiae brief filed in support of NR et al. in our legal defense against Penn State professor Michael Mann’s lawsuit. Today we have a few more briefs to share, no less significant.
First is the “Brief of Amici Curiae Newsmax Media, Inc., Free Beacon, LLC, the Foundation for Cultural Review, the Daily Caller, LLC, PJ Media, LLC, and the Electronic Frontier Foundation,” a gathering of largely Internet-based publishers who are concerned that “the injury to wide-open debate on matters of intense public interest is acute in this case, where the statements at issue are core First Amendment-protected speech.”
Second is the District of Columbia’s brief in defense of its anti-SLAPP statute (which was enacted to protect publications from expensive and litigious legal actions that have the net effect of limiting free speech).
And finally there is the “Brief Amici Curiae of the Cato Institute, Reason Foundation, Individual Rights Foundation, and Goldwater Institute Supporting Appellants and Reversal.” Their motivation:
Amici are concerned with the implications of the lower court’s decision, which chills speech at the juncture of political commentary and academic debate. Declaring “truth” or “falsity” in the midst of an ongoing scientific dispute not only infringes the freedom of speech on important matters of public policy, it threatens academic independence and chills scientific progress. Amici believe that their public policy experience will assist this Court in its consideration of this case.
We are grateful for these friends in our fight to protect the First Amendment rights of National Review, and of all institutions and individuals. By the way, if you would like to help defray our legal costs (we have insurance, but it doesn’t nearly cover our bills in this matter), please consider doing so here.