California Warmists Assault the First Amendment

[Deuce]

OP presumably bought the characterization without question. So sad.

 

[countryboy]

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

Trail balloon would never have been floated it they actually cared about "all that". The only reason they rejected it was because of fierce public outcry.

 

[Tanngrisnir]

Trail balloon would never have been floated it they actually cared about "all that". The only reason they rejected it was because of fierce public outcry.

Please demonstrate or link to whatever substantiates that claim.

 

[countryboy]

Please demonstrate or link to whatever substantiates that claim.

Common sense. Like I said, how would such a bill even come to the floor for a vote if they cared about "all that"?

 

[Buzz]

Maybe because the bill doesn't really attack "all that". Did you bother to read the actual bill?

 

[Tanngrisnir]

Common sense. Like I said, how would such a bill even come to the floor for a vote if they cared about "all that"?

That doesn't prove it was a 'trial balloon'. Sorry.

 

[countryboy]

That doesn't prove it was a 'trial balloon'. Sorry.

Do you have a better explanation? Let's here it.

 

[Tanngrisnir]

Do you have a better explanation? Let's here it.

There are numerous other explanations, one no more valid than the next w/out having been there.

I refuse to definitively ascribe it a cause w/out further data.

 

[eohrnberger]

At least this bill didn't make the floor.

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 bill is considered dead because the house-of-origin deadline is midnight Friday and the state Senate is not scheduled to meet again before that. Later this year, however, the same language could be reintroduced under a waiver of the rules or inserted into another bill as part of the gut-and-amend process.
. . . .
“Did you donate to the Pacific Legal Foundation? Do you support Americans for Prosperity? Are you a member of the California Republican Party, which has a platform approving of all forms of energy, including fossil fuel (oil)? Do you work for a gas station, an oil company, have you written a letter to the editor in favor of oil drilling?” Mr. Frank wrote in a May 31 post.

“If so, you could find yourself with being charged in a court of law, thanks to S.B. 1161,” he wrote.
Landmark California bill would allow prosecution of climate-change skeptics - Washington Times

More worrisome is what form it's next iteration going to be.

I fail to understand how legislators good conscience can put forth such a bill.

What will be outlawed next? The mere thought of disagreeing with Anthropogenic global warming? California is sounding more and more like 1984 all the time.

 

[countryboy]

There are numerous other explanations, one no more valid than the next w/out having been there.

I refuse to definitively ascribe it a cause w/out further data.

Lol, how very.....typical.

 

[Tanngrisnir]

Lol, how very.....typical.

Indeed. You're pretending to yourself that you know the reason, when in fact you actually don't.

Thanks for playing, Sport.

Good luck with your magical thinking.

 

[Lord of Planar]

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

I see.

It's not about if science lies or not. It's if you are a heretic of the AGW dogma, you will be punished.

 

[Deuce]

At least this bill didn't make the floor.



More worrisome is what form it's next iteration going to be.

I fail to understand how legislators good conscience can put forth such a bill.

What will be outlawed next? The mere thought of disagreeing with Anthropogenic global warming? California is sounding more and more like 1984 all the time.

Sure. Deliberately misleading the public in order to engage in unfair business practices, literal thought control. Totally the same.

 

[eohrnberger]

Sure. Deliberately misleading the public in order to engage in unfair business practices, literal thought control. Totally the same.

As opposed to thought control imposed by the state? Really? I think that's far more dangerous thing to be on guard about..

 

[Hawkeye10]

As opposed to thought control imposed by the state? Really? I think that's far more dangerous thing to be on guard about..

I dont care who does it, any attempt to control the minds of others through force and/or dishonestly needs to be condemned, and put down where possible.

 

[Kal'Stang]

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

Read it your link and sorry to say, seems to me like they're telling it straight.

(b) It is the intent of the Legislature to retroactively revive and extend the statute of limitation for actions that may or may not be barred by the applicable statute of limitation existing before January 1, 2017, and that seek redress for unfair competition practices committed by entities that have deceived, confused, or misled the public on the risks of climate change or financially supported activities that have deceived, confused, or misled the public on those risks.

SEC. 3. Section 342.5 is added to the Code of Civil Procedure, to read:

342.5. (a) (1) Notwithstanding Section 17208 of the Business and Professions Code, an action pursuant to Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 17200) of Part 2 of Division 7 of the Business and Professions Code 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 would otherwise be barred as of January 1, 2017, solely because the statute of limitation has or had expired, is revived and, in that case, the action may be commenced within four years of January 1, 2017. Nothing in this subdivision shall be construed to alter the applicable limitation period of an action that is not time barred as of January 1, 2017.

And before all of that it plainly stated what they believe to be the truth of the matter, that there is anthropogenic climate change happening. In lots of detail. Essentially and in laymans terms they want to sue denialists.

I also noted this part...

(b) This section applies only to actions brought by the Attorney General or a district attorney.

So essentially they put in a little bit that protects their butts from being sued for the same thing. Maybe they're not so sure about their science?

All in all the whole thing read to me like when people used to claim that aerosol cans was making a hole in the ozone layer. I also loved the fact that they tried to use NASA as a source from 1988 when in point of fact NASA had NO evidence supporting climate change and that they could only guess (reasonably mind you) at what climate change could do. AFAIK NASA never stated at that time that Climate Change WAS happening, much less the causes of it.

 

[eohrnberger]

I dont care who does it, any attempt to control the minds of others through force and/or dishonestly needs to be condemned, and put down where possible.

Fair enough. I'd include those that are pushing their excessive PC agenda for enforcement by the government in that same group.

 

[Hawkeye10]

Fair enough. I'd include those that are pushing their excessive PC agenda for enforcement by the government in that same group.

OK buts lets be clear that Facebook doing it would be as bad or almost as bad as the government doing it where the rubber meets the road.

 

[eohrnberger]

OK buts lets be clear that Facebook doing it would be as bad or almost as bad as the government doing it where the rubber meets the road.

I can opt out of Facebook and survive. I can't opt out from the government.

That being said, it's not good that Facebook engages in this sort of crap either, but far worse if the government does.

 

[Hawkeye10]

I can opt out of Facebook and survive. I can't opt out from the government.

That being said, it's not good that Facebook engages in this sort of crap either, but far worse if the government does.

That is not a pass, because you are not allowed to know when Facebook puts the fix in.The government can be worse because it is easier for them to bankrupt you and otherwise ruin your life, not to mention put you in jail, but this is too big an outrage to limit the refusal to allow the abuse only towards government misbehaviour.

 

[eohrnberger]

That is not a pass, because you are not allowed to know when Facebook puts the fix in.The government can be worse because it is easier for them to bankrupt you and otherwise ruin your life, not to mention put you in jail, but this is too big an outrage to limit the refusal to allow the abuse only towards government misbehaviour.

Not sure where you think I gave anyone a pass, but OK. No passes given here.

 

[Deuce]

As opposed to thought control imposed by the state? Really? I think that's far more dangerous thing to be on guard about..

What thought control? Nobody is proposing or implementing thought control.

 

[eohrnberger]

What thought control? Nobody is proposing or implementing thought control.

I posted earlier of a Cali state law which didn't make it that was going to punish those that don't toe the AGW party line.

The same at the national level.

AG Lynch Testifies: Justice Dept. Has ‘Discussed’ Civil Legal Action Against Climate Change Deniers

US Attorney General: We’ve ‘Discussed’ Prosecuting Climate Change Deniers

Prosecuting climate change ‘deniers’

Attorney General Lynch Looks Into Prosecuting ‘Climate Change Deniers’

If this is Obama's 'fundamental transformation', he can keep it.

If the government's laws start punishing dissent, difference of opinion, the ability to express those differences of opinions, it's not the US anymore.

 

[Deuce]

I posted earlier of a Cali state law which didn't make it that was going to punish those that don't toe the AGW party line.

The same at the national level.

AG Lynch Testifies: Justice Dept. Has ‘Discussed’ Civil Legal Action Against Climate Change Deniers

US Attorney General: We’ve ‘Discussed’ Prosecuting Climate Change Deniers

Prosecuting climate change ‘deniers’

Attorney General Lynch Looks Into Prosecuting ‘Climate Change Deniers’

If this is Obama's 'fundamental transformation', he can keep it.

If the government's laws start punishing dissent, difference of opinion, the ability to express those differences of opinions, it's not the US anymore.

You bought these headlines, eh?

The talk has always been about deliberately deceiving the public for financial gain, resulting in harm to the public. Not "thought control."

 

[eohrnberger]

You bought these headlines, eh?

The talk has always been about deliberately deceiving the public for financial gain, resulting in harm to the public. Not "thought control."

Also as posted previously, just the consideration of this type of prosecution is far too close for comfort, a danger sign of what far too easily follows.