- Joined
- Mar 2, 2013
- Messages
- 24,826
- Reaction score
- 8,345
- Location
- Northern New Jersey
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
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.
“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.
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.
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.
How is lying not a free speech issue?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Let us just suppose for a second that everything the IPCC predicts is correct,It would've allowed prosecuting corporations who intentionally deceive the public and
misrepresent data in order to maintain or increase their profits.
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.
How is lying not a free speech issue?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
So basically it's bad because people are terrible at doing their research.
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.
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?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?