California Senate sidelines bill to prosecute climate change skeptics

[Anthony60]

California Senate sidelines bill to prosecute climate change skeptics.

A landmark bill allowing for the prosecution of climate change dissent effectively died Thursday after the California Senate failed to take it up before the deadline.

Senate Bill 1161, or the California Climate Science Truth and Accountability Act of 2016, would have authorized prosecutors to sue fossil fuel companies, think tanks and others that have “deceived or misled the public on the risks of climate change.”


Landmark California bill would allow prosecution of climate-change skeptics - Washington Times

You folks on the left pretty good with this? Unbelievable.

 

[Henrin]

The left has been pretty big on speech control as of late.

 

[American]

That's because they can't win the debate of ideas. Silence your opponents is the way for them. Remember that mean ideas force them to their safe spaces. :lol:

 

[OrphanSlug]

All things considered, it would have been legislation subject to immediate challenge.

Just to prove someone is liable by the proposed language in that legislation would mean proving someone was guilty of denial (as a legal standard,) coercion (in the existing legal standard,) and misrepresentation as a means to profit (in some new hybrid definition with respect to climate change.)

Easily, I could see this becoming a court issue to determine basic rights against the interpretation of this bill granting authority for the government to sue someone they think is lying under specific terms for this subject alone. If expanded it would turn the government into a speech and expression limitation mechanism via threat of State level government lawsuit.

 

[Samhain]

Surprised they haven't outlawed all parties except the Democratic party.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

California Senate sidelines bill to prosecute climate change skeptics.

A landmark bill allowing for the prosecution of climate change dissent effectively died Thursday after the California Senate failed to take it up before the deadline.

Senate Bill 1161, or the California Climate Science Truth and Accountability Act of 2016, would have authorized prosecutors to sue fossil fuel companies, think tanks and others that have “deceived or misled the public on the risks of climate change.”


Landmark California bill would allow prosecution of climate-change skeptics - Washington Times

You folks on the left pretty good with this? Unbelievable.

Surprised they haven't outlawed all parties except the Democratic party.

That's because they can't win the debate of ideas. Silence your opponents is the way for them. Remember that mean ideas force them to their safe spaces. :lol:

The left has been pretty big on speech control as of late.

You act like this is attacking people who disagree, when it's not. It would've allowed prosecuting corporations who intentionally deceive the public and misrepresent data in order to maintain or increase their profits. It's no different from when the tobacco industry massively defrauded the public with fake studies and fake doctors that smoking was not only not dangerous but healthy. Oil corporations spend massive amounts of money and use fake science to sow seeds of doubt about climate change so that they can increase their profits. This is not a free-speech issue.

Any individual has a right to say anything they want to about climate change. A corporation however does not have a right to defraud the public for financial gain. If you can find that in the first amendment I'd like to see it.

 

[MrT]

“This bill explicitly authorizes district attorneys and the Attorney General to pursue UCL claims alleging that a business or organization has directly or indirectly engaged in unfair competition with respect to scientific evidence regarding the existence, extent, or current or future impacts of anthropogenic induced climate change,” said the state Senate Rules Committee’s floor analysis of the bill.

I tend to agree with the sentiment of punishing organizations that engage in fraud - particularly as it relates to the manipualtion of scientific data, but I don't really see a need to pass legislation explicitly authorizing prosecutors to go after climate change skeptics.

 

[Henrin]

You act like this is attacking people who disagree, when it's not. It would've allowed prosecuting corporations who intentionally deceive the public and misrepresent data in order to maintain or increase their profits. It's no different from when the tobacco industry massively defrauded the public with fake studies and fake doctors that smoking was not only not dangerous but healthy. Oil corporations spend massive amounts of money and use fake science to sow seeds of doubt about climate change so that they can increase their profits. This is not a free-speech issue.

How is lying not a free speech issue?

 

[jmotivator]

All things considered, it would have been legislation subject to immediate challenge.

Just to prove someone is liable by the proposed language in that legislation would mean proving someone was guilty of denial (as a legal standard,) coercion (in the existing legal standard,) and misrepresentation as a means to profit (in some new hybrid definition with respect to climate change.)

Easily, I could see this becoming a court issue to determine basic rights against the interpretation of this bill granting authority for the government to sue someone they think is lying under specific terms for this subject alone. If expanded it would turn the government into a speech and expression limitation mechanism via threat of State level government lawsuit.

While it would be easily challenged and shot down it would still mean that many people would be silenced and their lives ruined before the court over turned it.

That such tactics are even considered is frightening.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

How is lying not a free speech issue?

Any individual CAN lie. A corporation however can not use its funds and status to intentionally defraud the public for financial gain. Please show me where in the first amendment that right is granted.

Not that it matters because you're an anarchist who undoubtedly thinks there was nothing wrong with the tobacco industry creating fake science that smoking is safe.

 

[Erod]

When you have a weak argument, silence the other side. That seems to be the liberal way these days.

 

[jmotivator]

You act like this is attacking people who disagree, when it's not. It would've allowed prosecuting corporations who intentionally deceive the public and misrepresent data in order to maintain or increase their profits. It's no different from when the tobacco industry massively defrauded the public with fake studies and fake doctors that smoking was not only not dangerous but healthy. Oil corporations spend massive amounts of money and use fake science to sow seeds of doubt about climate change so that they can increase their profits. This is not a free-speech issue.

Ironically, I believe that this bill wasn't passed specifically because it would require the state to mount a defense of CAGW dogma in court when CAGW proponents have proven strangely unwilling to subject their beliefs to such scrutiny recently.

Suing the tobacco companies would result in discovery that there is a real and demonstrable damage directly caused by smoking cigarettes, if the prosecution couldn't prove that they couldn't win the case. In the case of any such lawsuit regarding AGW they would be hard pressed to find anything directly attributable to AGW while the CAGW would all be dubious predictions that would be insufficient for any case to be won by the prosecution.

I think some savvy Democrats in CA realized that this would be their Waterloo and decided not to go there.

 

[OrphanSlug]

While it would be easily challenged and shot down it would still mean that many people would be silenced and their lives ruined before the court over turned it.

That such tactics are even considered is frightening.

One thing we need to keep in mind is the scope.

The legislation is not necessarily a total silence tool to be used against "deniers." As I understand the language of the bill it is designed to go after specific industries (and associated interest groups) who "mislead" the public on climate change.

And even in that limited scope the legislation is a problem. It forces a one way street where "deniers" who have profit motive intentions have to prove they are not misleading, but climate change alarmists have no such standard. The government of California, under this legislation, cannot file suit against alarmists. They can only file suit against "deniers" under the context of the bill.

It still pits various freedoms to disagree on a subject (arguably) against a government determined to empower one group in ability to threaten with lawsuit some other group. The Oil and Natural Gas industries specifically would end up in more court cases dealing with various California agencies filing suit against them for this or that. The statue of limitations would immediately open a 4 year window of anything the industry said (I think) to file suit over.

It is bound to cause a legal nightmare, that California intentionally wants to create to inflate the costs of various industries. And honestly, hold them all hostage to political whim willing to extort funds from these industries entirely at their whim.

 

[chuckiechan]

They know if it went to court it would be laughed out of the courtroom. All this means is they need to go about it a different way. They are already trying to find a way to stop rail cars full of crude from going through cities. If they can stop that, they can really crimp the oil flow into the refineries.

So as is typical in California, they will somehow increase regulations and taxes to achieve this "correct thinking" goal some other way. Let's not forget they also run the educational system.

We'll just have to wait for the other shoe to drop.

 

[Henrin]

Any individual CAN lie. A corporation however can not use its funds and status to intentionally defraud the public for financial gain. Please show me where in the first amendment that right is granted.

Not that it matters because you're an anarchist who undoubtedly thinks there was nothing wrong with the tobacco industry creating fake science that smoking is safe.

So basically it's bad because people are terrible at doing their research.

 

[Samhain]

You act like this is attacking people who disagree, when it's not. It would've allowed prosecuting corporations who intentionally deceive the public and misrepresent data in order to maintain or increase their profits. It's no different from when the tobacco industry massively defrauded the public with fake studies and fake doctors that smoking was not only not dangerous but healthy. Oil corporations spend massive amounts of money and use fake science to sow seeds of doubt about climate change so that they can increase their profits. This is not a free-speech issue.

Any individual has a right to say anything they want to about climate change. A corporation however does not have a right to defraud the public for financial gain. If you can find that in the first amendment I'd like to see it.

It covers individuals as well. "...against a corporation, firm, partnership, joint stock company, association, or other organization of persons that has directly or indirectly engaged in unfair competition, as defined in Section 17200 of the Business and Professions Code, with respect to scientific evidence regarding the existence, extent, or current or future impacts of anthropogenic-induced climate change...". That includes non-profits, PACs, unions & their memebers, etc.

Section 2 is also attempting to establish in California law that "fossil fuel businesses knew of the harm their products might cause". Really? it "might" cause harm, therefore you should be sued. Slow clap for stupidity.

And why doesn't it cover all corporations, scientists, and the like that misrepresent data for financial gain?

 

[ocean515]

You act like this is attacking people who disagree, when it's not. It would've allowed prosecuting corporations who intentionally deceive the public and misrepresent data in order to maintain or increase their profits. It's no different from when the tobacco industry massively defrauded the public with fake studies and fake doctors that smoking was not only not dangerous but healthy. Oil corporations spend massive amounts of money and use fake science to sow seeds of doubt about climate change so that they can increase their profits. This is not a free-speech issue.

Any individual has a right to say anything they want to about climate change. A corporation however does not have a right to defraud the public for financial gain. If you can find that in the first amendment I'd like to see it.

Where is the quid pro quo against those committing fraud in the promotion of climate change? Where is the legislation calling for prosecution of those who knowingly manipulate data, hide conflicting information, and willfully defraud the public while seeking financial gain?

The legislation was most certainly an effort to attack people who disagree. It's intellectually dishonest to suggest otherwise. California is seeking to establish a totalitarian state feed by a compliant citizen base. Alarming legislation like the one proposed have become the norm.

 

[longview]

What I find interesting is when people say things like,

It would've allowed prosecuting corporations who intentionally deceive the public and
misrepresent data in order to maintain or increase their profits.

Let us just suppose for a second that everything the IPCC predicts is correct,
and the government taxes the hell out of carbon fuels.
Does anyone think the oil company profits will go down?
They will pass on any cost of new taxes or regulation to a public who has little choice to buy the
product.
Will the demand for fossil fuels decrease? some, but a drop in demand will drop the price of oil,
which will lower the refinery feedstock cost.
The most likely alternative fuel, is simply man made hydrocarbon fuel, made with
water, electricity, and atmospheric CO2.
Why is it the most likely? The oil company refineries can make their own feedstock for about
$90 a barrel, and already have the equipment, expertise, and distribution infrastructure to sell
the carbon neutral fuel.
The oil in the ground will still have value, just not for fuel.

 

[Crovax]

You act like this is attacking people who disagree, when it's not. It would've allowed prosecuting corporations who intentionally deceive the public and misrepresent data in order to maintain or increase their profits. It's no different from when the tobacco industry massively defrauded the public with fake studies and fake doctors that smoking was not only not dangerous but healthy. Oil corporations spend massive amounts of money and use fake science to sow seeds of doubt about climate change so that they can increase their profits. This is not a free-speech issue.

Any individual has a right to say anything they want to about climate change. A corporation however does not have a right to defraud the public for financial gain. If you can find that in the first amendment I'd like to see it.

So do you think Al Gore should be held liable for fraud for all the false claims he made?

After 10 Years Al Gore’s Film Is Still Alarmingly Inaccurate | The Daily Caller

 

[Hatuey]

How is lying not a free speech issue?

There is no right to lie and deceive people about a product you have an interest in selling.

 

[jmotivator]

One thing we need to keep in mind is the scope.

The legislation is not necessarily a total silence tool to be used against "deniers." As I understand the language of the bill it is designed to go after specific industries (and associated interest groups) who "mislead" the public on climate change.

And even in that limited scope the legislation is a problem. It forces a one way street where "deniers" who have profit motive intentions have to prove they are not misleading, but climate change alarmists have no such standard. The government of California, under this legislation, cannot file suit against alarmists. They can only file suit against "deniers" under the context of the bill.

It still pits various freedoms to disagree on a subject (arguably) against a government determined to empower one group in ability to threaten with lawsuit some other group. The Oil and Natural Gas industries specifically would end up in more court cases dealing with various California agencies filing suit against them for this or that. The statue of limitations would immediately open a 4 year window of anything the industry said (I think) to file suit over.

It is bound to cause a legal nightmare, that California intentionally wants to create to inflate the costs of various industries. And honestly, hold them all hostage to political whim willing to extort funds from these industries entirely at their whim.

Quite frankly I would argue that the the limited scope is the most objectionable is the limited scope. The targeting of specific industries smacks of a witch hunt.

 

[ocean515]

Quite frankly I would argue that the the limited scope is the most objectionable is the limited scope. The targeting of specific industries smacks of a witch hunt.

Agreed. The liberal/socialist progressives running California have demonstrated they are obsessed with purging the State of undesirables who don't cower to their agenda and rule. It's a very sad and dangerous agenda the rest of the country should consider when contemplating rule by such ideologically driven forces.

Forget the platitudes, and pay attention to the actions.

 

[TheDemSocialist]

You act like this is attacking people who disagree, when it's not. It would've allowed prosecuting corporations who intentionally deceive the public and misrepresent data in order to maintain or increase their profits. It's no different from when the tobacco industry massively defrauded the public with fake studies and fake doctors that smoking was not only not dangerous but healthy. Oil corporations spend massive amounts of money and use fake science to sow seeds of doubt about climate change so that they can increase their profits. This is not a free-speech issue.

Any individual has a right to say anything they want to about climate change. A corporation however does not have a right to defraud the public for financial gain. If you can find that in the first amendment I'd like to see it.

Any individual CAN lie. A corporation however can not use its funds and status to intentionally defraud the public for financial gain. Please show me where in the first amendment that right is granted.


Not that it matters because you're an anarchist who undoubtedly thinks there was nothing wrong with the tobacco industry creating fake science that smoking is safe.

Damn you RabidAlpaca with your factual information and logical conclusions!

"Last month, the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) released a trove of documents revealing that the oil industry has been well aware of the potential climate risks of fossil fuels for decades. The uncovered industry documents show that the petroleum industry was conducting climate research as early as 1957, corroborating evidence that major oil companies had a sophisticated command of climate science by the 1980s...
[h=3]SB 1161 ensures potentially unlawful acts do not escape prosecution[/h]Aside from the moral implications of the fossil fuel industry’s deceit, there is a question of whether their behavior was unlawful. It is possible that fossil fuel companies violated California’s Unfair Competition Law, which protects consumers from deceptive, misleading, and fraudulent business practices. This law typically requires legal action within four years. However, a statute of limitations can sometimes be suspended (“tolled,” in legalese) if the unlawful behavior is hidden from the public. Consequently, there is uncertainty about when the statute of limitations runs out in a case like this.
Here is where SB 1161 steps in: the bill says that any cases addressing violations of the Unfair Competition Law that relate to deceiving the public about climate science won’t get caught up in procedural debates about whether the statute of limitations has run—so long as the cases are brought in the next four years. The result is that the state attorney general or a district attorney could fairly litigate any acts of unfair business competition relating to climate science so long as the investigations lead them to file a lawsuit before 2021.
To be clear, SB 1161 does not presume that any fossil fuel company has violated the law. But should the evidence support legal action, SB 1161 will give public prosecutors a more powerful tool to pursue it. It would be an unfortunate contortion of our justice system for a fossil fuel company to escape prosecution for unlawful acts simply because it successfully hid the evidence from public view. SB 1161 protects the public from such a risk."
Momentum Builds in California to Hold Fossil Fuel Companies Accountable for Climate Science Misinformation - The Equation

 

[RabidAlpaca]

Ironically, I believe that this bill wasn't passed specifically because it would require the state to mount a defense of CAGW dogma in court when CAGW proponents have proven strangely unwilling to subject their beliefs to such scrutiny recently.

Suing the tobacco companies would result in discovery that there is a real and demonstrable damage directly caused by smoking cigarettes, if the prosecution couldn't prove that they couldn't win the case. In the case of any such lawsuit regarding AGW they would be hard pressed to find anything directly attributable to AGW while the CAGW would all be dubious predictions that would be insufficient for any case to be won by the prosecution.

I think some savvy Democrats in CA realized that this would be their Waterloo and decided not to go there.

So you just made up your own reason that fits your conspiracy theory narrative? Why should a corporation be allowed to intentionally downplay and deny the damages of their products? The tobacco companies spent decades doing the exact same thing the oil companies are doing. Using their own fake scientists and fake research to sow doubt about the harms of their product. What could that possibly have to do with the 1st amendment?

Where is the quid pro quo against those committing fraud in the promotion of climate change? Where is the legislation calling for prosecution of those who knowingly manipulate data, hide conflicting information, and willfully defraud the public while seeking financial gain?

The legislation was most certainly an effort to attack people who disagree. It's intellectually dishonest to suggest otherwise. California is seeking to establish a totalitarian state feed by a compliant citizen base. Alarming legislation like the one proposed have become the norm.

Any corporation intentionally defrauding the public for financial gain should be prosecuted. I'm not sure why you think it should never be prosecuted.

So do you think Al Gore should be held liable for fraud for all the false claims he made?

After 10 Years Al Gore’s Film Is Still Alarmingly Inaccurate | The Daily Caller

If he defrauded the public for financial gain, yes. Science disagrees with your conspiracy theory.

So basically it's bad because people are terrible at doing their research.

Says the anarchist who definitely hasn't done the research of all the materials and processes of every product he consumes or interacts with.

Agreed. The liberal/socialist progressives running California have demonstrated they are obsessed with purging the State of undesirables who don't cower to their agenda and rule. It's a very sad and dangerous agenda the rest of the country should consider when contemplating rule by such ideologically driven forces.

Forget the platitudes, and pay attention to the actions.

Isn't it pretty ****ing childish to pretend that prosecuting companies who intentionally defraud the public for financial gain is akin to a government conspiracy to thwart all skeptics?

 

[jmotivator]

So you just made up your own reason that fits your conspiracy theory narrative? Why should a corporation be allowed to intentionally downplay and deny the damages of their products? The tobacco companies spent decades doing the exact same thing the oil companies are doing. Using their own fake scientists and fake research to sow doubt about the harms of their product. What could that possibly have to do with the 1st amendment?

Why should the state be allowed to punish a company on assumed future damage of a product?

The problem is that the state would have to prove damage when, in case you missed it, is not currently objective fact.