• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

California Warmists Assault the First Amendment

Jack Hays

Traveler
Banned
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2013
Messages
94,823
Reaction score
28,236
Location
Williamsburg, Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
If fascism ever comes to the U.S. it will be clothed in good intentions and self-righteousness. California warmists seem to want to lead the way.


The first amendment is now dead in California: New California bill would allow prosecution of climate-change skeptics

From The Washington Times and the “your friendly local California thought police” comes this travesty. A landmark California bill gaining steam would make it illegal to engage in climate-change dissent, clearing the way for lawsuits against fossil-fuel companies, think-tanks and others that have “deceived or misled the public on the risks of climate change.” The…
Continue reading →

A landmark California bill gaining steam would make it illegal to engage in climate-change dissent, clearing the way for lawsuits against fossil-fuel companies, think-tanks and others that have “deceived or misled the public on the risks of climate change.”
The first-of-its-kind legislation — Senate Bill 1161, or the California Climate Science Truth and Accountability Act of 2016 — is scheduled for floor action Thursday after clearing Senate committees in April and May.
The measure would allow state and local prosecutors to pursue claims against climate-change skepticism as a violation of the state’s Unfair Competition Law [UCL], as well as extend the four-year statute of limitations for such claims retroactively to Jan. 1, 2021.
“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,” says the state Senate Rules Committee’s floor analysis.
While the measure enjoys broad support by a bevy of environmental groups, the bill has also been described as an effort to ban free speech on climate change as well as chill donations to free-market groups. . . .


 

chuckiechan

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 2, 2015
Messages
16,568
Reaction score
7,251
Location
California Caliphate
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I'm a California "denier" and whenever I leave my house I'm required to wear a pink leaf shaped badge with a big "D" on it.

They tell me I've won a trip and will be leaving soon. :2wave:
 

Lutherf

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 16, 2012
Messages
39,808
Reaction score
46,377
Location
Tucson, AZ
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
They're going after the oil industry the same way they went after tobacco 40-50 years ago. It's ENTIRELY an anti-capitalist move and even if the commie scumbuckets manage to get the thing passed it will never pass judicial review. Even Sotomayor and Ginsburg aren't crazy enough to back this kind of horse.
 
Last edited:

Henrin

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 3, 2010
Messages
60,458
Reaction score
12,357
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
What? What in the **** is unfair competition with respect to scientific evidence? lol.
 

Henrin

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 3, 2010
Messages
60,458
Reaction score
12,357
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
(8) Misleading and inaccurate information disseminated by organizations and representatives backed by fossil fuel companies, along with advertising and publicity casting doubt on scientific understanding of climate change, have led to confusion, disagreement, and unnecessary controversy over the causes of climate change and the effects of emissions of greenhouse gases. This type of misinformation, widely and broadly disseminated in the media, has long delayed public understanding of the risks of continuing to emit high levels of greenhouse gases, confused and polarized the public on the need to aggressively reduce emissions to limit risks from climate change, and increased damage to public safety, health, and property in California as well as nationally and globally.

You mean people are practicing their first amendment rights? Shocking, ain't it?
 

PirateMk1

Resident Martian ;)
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 28, 2012
Messages
17,085
Reaction score
8,190
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
If fascism ever comes to the U.S. it will be clothed in good intentions and self-righteousness. California warmists seem to want to lead the way.


The first amendment is now dead in California: New California bill would allow prosecution of climate-change skeptics

From The Washington Times and the “your friendly local California thought police” comes this travesty. A landmark California bill gaining steam would make it illegal to engage in climate-change dissent, clearing the way for lawsuits against fossil-fuel companies, think-tanks and others that have “deceived or misled the public on the risks of climate change.” The…
Continue reading →

A landmark California bill gaining steam would make it illegal to engage in climate-change dissent, clearing the way for lawsuits against fossil-fuel companies, think-tanks and others that have “deceived or misled the public on the risks of climate change.”
The first-of-its-kind legislation — Senate Bill 1161, or the California Climate Science Truth and Accountability Act of 2016 — is scheduled for floor action Thursday after clearing Senate committees in April and May.
The measure would allow state and local prosecutors to pursue claims against climate-change skepticism as a violation of the state’s Unfair Competition Law [UCL], as well as extend the four-year statute of limitations for such claims retroactively to Jan. 1, 2021.
“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,” says the state Senate Rules Committee’s floor analysis.
While the measure enjoys broad support by a bevy of environmental groups, the bill has also been described as an effort to ban free speech on climate change as well as chill donations to free-market groups. . . .



It violates the California constitution. It is DOA upon litigation.
 

Moon

Why so serious?
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 2, 2009
Messages
9,944
Reaction score
5,116
Location
Washington State
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Sounds like a theocratic anti-blashpemy law.
 

Fearandloathing

Just watchin'
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2012
Messages
22,192
Reaction score
18,817
Location
Vancouver, Canada Dual citizen
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
If fascism ever comes to the U.S. it will be clothed in good intentions and self-righteousness. California warmists seem to want to lead the way.


The first amendment is now dead in California: New California bill would allow prosecution of climate-change skeptics

From The Washington Times and the “your friendly local California thought police” comes this travesty. A landmark California bill gaining steam would make it illegal to engage in climate-change dissent, clearing the way for lawsuits against fossil-fuel companies, think-tanks and others that have “deceived or misled the public on the risks of climate change.” The…
Continue reading →

A landmark California bill gaining steam would make it illegal to engage in climate-change dissent, clearing the way for lawsuits against fossil-fuel companies, think-tanks and others that have “deceived or misled the public on the risks of climate change.”
The first-of-its-kind legislation — Senate Bill 1161, or the California Climate Science Truth and Accountability Act of 2016 — is scheduled for floor action Thursday after clearing Senate committees in April and May.
The measure would allow state and local prosecutors to pursue claims against climate-change skepticism as a violation of the state’s Unfair Competition Law [UCL], as well as extend the four-year statute of limitations for such claims retroactively to Jan. 1, 2021.
“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,” says the state Senate Rules Committee’s floor analysis.
While the measure enjoys broad support by a bevy of environmental groups, the bill has also been described as an effort to ban free speech on climate change as well as chill donations to free-market groups. . . .





This is how it always starts. He who controls the news of the day, controls the world
 

Buzz

Irritant
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 18, 2014
Messages
3,234
Reaction score
621
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
What we have here is a good example of how denialists like Anthony Watts mislead people.

All this law would have done (if it had been voted for today... but wasn't) is extend the statute of limitations on already existing law.

Sponsored by Sen. Ben Allen, (D–Santa Monica), the Climate Science Truth and Accountability Act of 2016 (SB 1161) does not create new law, rather the proposal extends the statute of limitations of California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL) more than seven times from its current four years to three decades back.
Bill expanding statute of limitations in climate change cases passes subcommittee | Northern California Record

I have been reading Anthony Watts' BS for years and have long ago realized what a misinforming hack he is.
 

ludin

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 3, 2013
Messages
57,470
Reaction score
14,585
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
What we have here is a good example of how denialists like Anthony Watts mislead people.

All this law would have done (if it had been voted for today... but wasn't) is extend the statute of limitations on already existing law.

Bill expanding statute of limitations in climate change cases passes subcommittee | Northern California Record

I have been reading Anthony Watts' BS for years and have long ago realized what a misinforming hack he is.

if you mean mislead people by pointing out the deliberate use of climate data used then he should be commended.
however that still doesn't mean that this doesn't violate the 1st amendment.
 

Buzz

Irritant
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 18, 2014
Messages
3,234
Reaction score
621
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
if you mean mislead people by pointing out the deliberate use of climate data used then he should be commended.

No... I mean he misleads people by deliberately cherry picking climate data. Among a plethora of dishonest tactics he loves to use.

however that still doesn't mean that this doesn't violate the 1st amendment.

You sure about that? Then why hasn't the current law that this bill extends the statue of limitations on been struck down by the courts?
 

RetiredUSN

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 13, 2016
Messages
26,649
Reaction score
13,555
Location
Norfolk Virginia area.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Say what you want about deniers, but the fact that government officials have been talking about legal action against deniers speaks volumes about how fascist the left has become.

Lorretta Lynch anyone?
 

Hawkeye10

Buttermilk Man
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 29, 2015
Messages
45,404
Reaction score
11,744
Location
Olympia Wa
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Say what you want about deniers, but the fact that government officials have been talking about legal action against deniers speaks volumes about how fascist the left has become.

Lorretta Lynch anyone?

Liberals once upon a time cared a great deal about personal liberty, and believed in people, and believed in the full and fair combat of ideas.

WTF happened to that bunch?

They went soft in the head.

Seriously.
 

ludin

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 3, 2013
Messages
57,470
Reaction score
14,585
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
No... I mean he misleads people by deliberately cherry picking climate data. Among a plethora of dishonest tactics he loves to use.

you mean the same tactics that AGW zealots use to push their agenda the only difference is he points out where they cherry pick?


You sure about that? Then why hasn't the current law that this bill extends the statue of limitations on been struck down by the courts?

because the current law has nothing to do with what they are attempting to do with it that is why.
 

ludin

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 3, 2013
Messages
57,470
Reaction score
14,585
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Say what you want about deniers, but the fact that government officials have been talking about legal action against deniers speaks volumes about how fascist the left has become.

Lorretta Lynch anyone?

deniers is the wrong term to use.

skeptical of government claims that have been distorted and published for ideological reasons would be better.
 

Lord of Planar

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 22, 2012
Messages
46,221
Reaction score
13,513
Location
Portlandia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Liberals once upon a time cared a great deal about personal liberty, and believed in people, and believed in the full and fair combat of ideas.

WTF happened to that bunch?

They went soft in the head.

Seriously.

No.

That only applies to those who already agree with them.

Liberals are huge on totalitarianism.
 

Jack Hays

Traveler
Banned
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2013
Messages
94,823
Reaction score
28,236
Location
Williamsburg, Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
What we have here is a good example of how denialists like Anthony Watts mislead people.

All this law would have done (if it had been voted for today... but wasn't) is extend the statute of limitations on already existing law.

Bill expanding statute of limitations in climate change cases passes subcommittee | Northern California Record

I have been reading Anthony Watts' BS for years and have long ago realized what a misinforming hack he is.

And yet AGW "consensus enforcement" is the motive.
 

Jack Hays

Traveler
Banned
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2013
Messages
94,823
Reaction score
28,236
Location
Williamsburg, Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Defcon1 Legal Threat: California’s near miss on new laws to jail climate skeptics


Here’s how a democracy becomes a technocracy: when the legislation decrees a government department edit is “truth” and threatens to jail anyone who disagrees. For a whole 3 months California’s Senate didn’t treat this bill like the democratic-leprosy that it is. Today it’s just been “moved to inactive” which means it is out of action for the moment — immediate threat over — but the fact that it was proposed and passed several Senate committee stages in California should rattle the bones of every freeman. A tyranny beckons.
There are already laws that stop people from profiting from lies and deception. They apply to everyone. Why do they need climate skeptic specific laws? Because the skeptics speak the truth.
This is nuclear stuff:
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.”
So close. Washington Post:
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.”
The measure, which cleared two Senate committees, provided a four-year window in the statute of limitations on violations of the state’s Unfair Competition Law, allowing legal action to be brought until Jan. 1 on charges of climate change “fraud” extending back indefinitely.
Legislate scientific laws? (Make govt departments untouchable.)

Rather than being a law that applies to one and all, the bill starts by defining their “truths”, entrenching falsehoods, and an immature corrupted scientific field into legislation — hard to believe. If a government department was — banish the thought — wrong about something, this type of legislation would jail people for saying so — all hail the US EPA?
SEC. 2. (a) The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:
(1) There is broad scientific consensus that anthropogenic global warming is occurring and changing the world’s climate patterns, and that the primary cause is the emission of greenhouse gases from the production and combustion of fossil fuels, such as coal, oil, and natural gas.
(2) The United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) states that the buildup of atmospheric greenhouse gases results in impacts that include the following:
(A) Changing temperature and precipitation patterns.
(B) Increases in ocean temperatures, sea level, and acidity.
(C) Melting of glaciers and sea ice.
(D) Changes in the frequency, intensity, and duration of extreme weather events.
(E) Shifts in ecosystem characteristics, such as the length of the growing season, timing of flower blooms, and migration of birds.
(F) Increased threats to human health.
So “the legislature” firstly declares there is a broad scientific consensus, despite there being not one single study or even so much as an anonymous internet poll that demonstrates that. There is not even a consensus among climate scientists. Two-thirds of geoscientists and engineers are skeptics, aren’t they scientists? Oh-yessity, and their branch is the kind that doesn’t need a consensus. When was the last time a state legislated that Dept of Transport declares there is Conservation of Momentum? There is a good reason we don’t make laws about more complex phenomena — otherwise we’d have jailed people for saying that continents drift, eggs are healthy, and crash diets might stop diabetes.
The legislation has a few other little bombs — like retrospectively removing the statute of limitations: . . .
 

Tanngrisnir

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 2, 2016
Messages
34,150
Reaction score
15,597
Location
No longer Los Angeles
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Liberals once upon a time cared a great deal about personal liberty, and believed in people, and believed in the full and fair combat of ideas.

WTF happened to that bunch?

They went soft in the head.

Seriously.

Given the makeup of the CA state senate that killed the bill today, apparently they still care about all that.
 

Tim the plumber

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 3, 2014
Messages
16,501
Reaction score
3,815
Location
Sheffield
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
If fascism ever comes to the U.S. it will be clothed in good intentions and self-righteousness. California warmists seem to want to lead the way.


The first amendment is now dead in California: New California bill would allow prosecution of climate-change skeptics

From The Washington Times and the “your friendly local California thought police” comes this travesty. A landmark California bill gaining steam would make it illegal to engage in climate-change dissent, clearing the way for lawsuits against fossil-fuel companies, think-tanks and others that have “deceived or misled the public on the risks of climate change.” The…
Continue reading →

A landmark California bill gaining steam would make it illegal to engage in climate-change dissent, clearing the way for lawsuits against fossil-fuel companies, think-tanks and others that have “deceived or misled the public on the risks of climate change.”
The first-of-its-kind legislation — Senate Bill 1161, or the California Climate Science Truth and Accountability Act of 2016 — is scheduled for floor action Thursday after clearing Senate committees in April and May.
The measure would allow state and local prosecutors to pursue claims against climate-change skepticism as a violation of the state’s Unfair Competition Law [UCL], as well as extend the four-year statute of limitations for such claims retroactively to Jan. 1, 2021.
“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,” says the state Senate Rules Committee’s floor analysis.
While the measure enjoys broad support by a bevy of environmental groups, the bill has also been described as an effort to ban free speech on climate change as well as chill donations to free-market groups. . . .



I have not read the detail of this bill but it sounds fabulous!!!

Any organization which spews drivel can be prosecuted. All the plaintif has to do is show that the "science" is a load of ****. Look out Greenpeace et al!!!
 

Lord of Planar

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 22, 2012
Messages
46,221
Reaction score
13,513
Location
Portlandia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
I have not read the detail of this bill but it sounds fabulous!!!

Any organization which spews drivel can be prosecuted. All the plaintif has to do is show that the "science" is a load of ****. Look out Greenpeace et al!!!

Look out IPCC et. al.
 

Buzz

Irritant
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 18, 2014
Messages
3,234
Reaction score
621
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Damn... you denialists are all over the place. Its Fascism, its totalitarianism. Its bad because it outlaws disent, its good because it might be used against the IPCC or Greenpeace.

I think you all are basing your opinions solely on biased assesments of the bill. Why don't you all actually read the text of the bill then maybe you all could make a more informed opinion.

Today's Law As Amended
 
Top Bottom