In July of 2012, the blog of the Competitive Enterprise Institute compared one of the researchers at Penn State University to one of its football coaches. The comparison was not flattering, given the referenced coach had just been convicted of sexually abusing minors. That comparison was then echoed favorably by a blogger and columnist at the National Review. The scientist in question, climatologist Mike Mann, sued them all for defamation.

The case has struggled through the courts ever since. The defendants tried to get it dismissed under the District of Columbia's Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP) statute, which attempts to keep people from being silenced by frivolous lawsuits. The judge hearing the case denied the attempt and then promptly retired; Mann next amended his complaint, leading an appeals court to send the whole thing back to a new trial judge.

Now the new judge has denied the SLAPP attempt yet again. In a decision released late last week (and hosted by defendant Mark Steyn), the judge recognizes that the comparison to a child molester is part of the "opinions and rhetorical hyperbole" that are protected speech when used against public figures like Mann. However, the accompanying accusations of fraud are not exempt:

Accusing a scientist of conducting his research fraudulently, manipulating his data to achieve a predetermined or political outcome, or purposefully distorting the scientific truth are factual allegations. They go to the heart of scientific integrity. They can be proven true or false. If false, they are defamatory. If made with actual malice, they are actionable.

Determining whether the blog pieces are false and were made with malice can be determined at trial, which, barring further appeals, may ultimately happen. But there may be further delays, as the lawyer that had been representing Steyn and the National Review has withdrawn from the case, leaving Steyn representing himself. Hopefully, he knows more about the law than he does about Mann's research. In another recent blog post about the case, Steyn indicated that he doesn't realize that Mann works on reconstructions of past climates, rather than the models that are used to project future climates.