Should the validity of scientific proposals be decided in a court of law? Should policy be decided the same way? The great Mark Steyn has posted a new video interview on the most important free speech case of our time:
This is the difference between the rest of the English-speaking world and the United States: There’s a constitutional, absolute right to free expression. But that’s of limited value in a litigious society where people can tie you up in court for five to ten years. And it’s of even less value if actually you lose the spirit of vigorous public discourse. And that’s my concern, too: That on climate change and many other issues, there’s no point in having absolute freedom of speech if, as a practical matter, public discourse shrivels to an ever-narrower range of public opinion.