Take Mann’s case against Mark Steyn et al., for instance…
One is supposedly guaranteed a jury of one’s peers, which in Steyn’s case is cause enough for pessimism.
But bear in mind that Steyn’s first judge was so stupid she got the defendants mixed up.
In 1988, Flynt was the “liberal”/good guy and Falwell the “conservative” bad guy.
Today, in brain-dead, conformist, politically correct America, I fear Steyn will be viewed as the “Falwell” of the case even though he’s (technically) the “Flynt.”
Plus it was easy for Larry Flynt to play the outrageous, courageous “free speech” hero, and not just because he was, temperamentally, a daredevil and a brat.
In the first place, he was a millionaire many times over.
(I haven’t been able to determine whether Flynt’s lawyers represented him pro bono, on principle, and invite clarification in the comments.)
And secondly, all his trials and re-trials didn’t take much out of him because there was nothing to take:
Flynt had been shot and paralyzed outside another courthouse by the time his case reached the Supreme Court; legal and illegal drugs helpfully damped down any residual physical or mental sensations like worry and fear.