Climate change denial against the law? The DOJ thinks maybe it should be.

[dead0man]

link

You must be logged in to read this quote.

gross

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

RIP Snowguy, FF

[Mr. Reactionary]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2016/04/11/attorney-generals-conspire-free-speech-schneiderman-harris-exxon-cei-column/82878218/

[OSR stands with Israel]

The courts  should declare it unconstitutional and if true Lynch could be a worse Attorney general then Alberto Gonzalez  

[Figueira]

I'm with the DOJ on this one. Maybe they should also pursue civil action against people who don't read the article.

[Frodo]

I'm with the DOJ on this one. Maybe they should also pursue civil action against people who don't read the article.

Tell me this post (especially the first sentence) was tongue-in-cheek. 

[Figueira]

I'm with the DOJ on this one. Maybe they should also pursue civil action against people who don't read the article.

Tell me this post (especially the first sentence) was tongue-in-cheek. 

Nope, only the second sentence.

[Frodo]

I'm with the DOJ on this one. Maybe they should also pursue civil action against people who don't read the article.

Tell me this post (especially the first sentence) was tongue-in-cheek. 

Nope, only the second sentence.

You seriously think that dissenting from the declared orthodoxy is worth a government crackdown? 

You really are far out there....   

[Frodo]

Anyway, why is it that only right-wing news outlets have this as their news-story?  I can find no mainstream sources on this. 

[Ban my account ffs!]

You have to prove that someone "knows" catastrophic anthropogenic global warming is real...but still "denies" it in order to purposefully deceive people.  Good luck with that.

The real message is clear, though....believe what we tell you to believe, or we will hurt you.

[SWE]

I'm with the DOJ on this one. Maybe they should also pursue civil action against people who don't read the article.

Tell me this post (especially the first sentence) was tongue-in-cheek. 

Nope, only the second sentence.

You seriously think that dissenting from the declared orthodoxy is worth a government crackdown? 

You really are far out there....   

What's so shocking about taking legal action against blatant fraud?

[Figueira]

I'm with the DOJ on this one. Maybe they should also pursue civil action against people who don't read the article.

Tell me this post (especially the first sentence) was tongue-in-cheek. 

Nope, only the second sentence.

You seriously think that dissenting from the declared orthodoxy is worth a government crackdown? 

You really are far out there....   

OK, at this point it's clear that you're not going to read the article.

It's not punishing random people who don't believe in science; it's punishing fossil fuel companies who knew about it and lied about it. Like this.

[Mr. Smith]

Now that is something completely worth backing.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Anyway, why is it that only right-wing news outlets have this as their news-story?  I can find no mainstream sources on this. 

Because if you read the link in the OP, it's clear that what's going on is a liberal Senator asked Lynch to look into treating big oil like big tobacco was a couple decades ago and she basically said "that's interesting" so as to mollify him without committing to actually doing anything.

Maybe under President Sanders it would get past the "that's interesting" stage, but Bernie's not getting the nomination, so there really is no story here for at least nine more years. Which is good, since even if there is a case to be made, which I doubt, the tobacco settlement is proof positive that this is a horrible way of dealing with the problem. Big tobacco didn't suffer, the money was largely frittered away on other uses, so it was effectively a way to tax tobacco use without passing a tax at a time when even raising tobacco taxes was politically unpopular.

[Frodo]

I'm with the DOJ on this one. Maybe they should also pursue civil action against people who don't read the article.

Tell me this post (especially the first sentence) was tongue-in-cheek.  

Nope, only the second sentence.

You seriously think that dissenting from the declared orthodoxy is worth a government crackdown?  

You really are far out there....  

OK, at this point it's clear that you're not going to read the article.

It's not punishing random people who don't believe in science; it's punishing fossil fuel companies who knew about it and lied about it. Like this.

Yes, I did read the article.  And if you believe this isn't intended to send a message to the wider climate skeptic community, you are more naive than I thought.  

[Figueira]

I'm with the DOJ on this one. Maybe they should also pursue civil action against people who don't read the article.

Tell me this post (especially the first sentence) was tongue-in-cheek. 

Nope, only the second sentence.

You seriously think that dissenting from the declared orthodoxy is worth a government crackdown? 

You really are far out there....   

OK, at this point it's clear that you're not going to read the article.

It's not punishing random people who don't believe in science; it's punishing fossil fuel companies who knew about it and lied about it. Like this.

Yes, I did read the article.  And if you believe this isn't intended to send a message to the wider climate skeptic community, you are more naive than I thought. 

What exactly is the motive here?

[Frodo]

I'm with the DOJ on this one. Maybe they should also pursue civil action against people who don't read the article.

Tell me this post (especially the first sentence) was tongue-in-cheek. 

Nope, only the second sentence.

You seriously think that dissenting from the declared orthodoxy is worth a government crackdown? 

You really are far out there....   

OK, at this point it's clear that you're not going to read the article.

It's not punishing random people who don't believe in science; it's punishing fossil fuel companies who knew about it and lied about it. Like this.

Yes, I did read the article.  And if you believe this isn't intended to send a message to the wider climate skeptic community, you are more naive than I thought. 

What exactly is the motive here?

To silence them.  As if it wasn't enough to marginalize them. 

[Figueira]

I'm with the DOJ on this one. Maybe they should also pursue civil action against people who don't read the article.

Tell me this post (especially the first sentence) was tongue-in-cheek. 

Nope, only the second sentence.

You seriously think that dissenting from the declared orthodoxy is worth a government crackdown? 

You really are far out there....   

OK, at this point it's clear that you're not going to read the article.

It's not punishing random people who don't believe in science; it's punishing fossil fuel companies who knew about it and lied about it. Like this.

Yes, I did read the article.  And if you believe this isn't intended to send a message to the wider climate skeptic community, you are more naive than I thought. 

What exactly is the motive here?

To silence them.  As if it wasn't enough to marginalize them. 

For what reason?

[Frodo]

I'm with the DOJ on this one. Maybe they should also pursue civil action against people who don't read the article.

Tell me this post (especially the first sentence) was tongue-in-cheek.  

Nope, only the second sentence.

You seriously think that dissenting from the declared orthodoxy is worth a government crackdown?  

You really are far out there....  

OK, at this point it's clear that you're not going to read the article.

It's not punishing random people who don't believe in science; it's punishing fossil fuel companies who knew about it and lied about it. Like this.

Yes, I did read the article.  And if you believe this isn't intended to send a message to the wider climate skeptic community, you are more naive than I thought.  

What exactly is the motive here?

To silence them.  As if it wasn't enough to marginalize them.  

For what reason?

If you are a proponent of the man-made climate change theory who believes the crisis is as dire as you have been led to believe -and you are on a crusade to save the world- then any dissenting voices must therefore be quieted lest they detract from the gravity of the crisis at hand.  

Yes, I do think there are some (see: neveragain) among you who are that crazy.  Including some who hold electoral office.  And that terrifies me.  

[Figueira]

I'm with the DOJ on this one. Maybe they should also pursue civil action against people who don't read the article.

Tell me this post (especially the first sentence) was tongue-in-cheek.  

Nope, only the second sentence.

You seriously think that dissenting from the declared orthodoxy is worth a government crackdown?  

You really are far out there....  

OK, at this point it's clear that you're not going to read the article.

It's not punishing random people who don't believe in science; it's punishing fossil fuel companies who knew about it and lied about it. Like this.

Yes, I did read the article.  And if you believe this isn't intended to send a message to the wider climate skeptic community, you are more naive than I thought.  

What exactly is the motive here?

To silence them.  As if it wasn't enough to marginalize them.  

For what reason?

If you are a proponent of man-made climate change who believes the crisis is as dire as you have been led to believe -and you are on a crusade to save the world- then any dissenting voices must therefore be quieted lest they detract from the gravity of the crisis at hand.  

Yes, I do think there are some (see: neveragain) among you who are that crazy.  Including some who hold electoral office.  And that terrifies me.  

I am an opponent of man-made climate change, not a proponent. Also, you haven't really provided any kind of evidence for your claim other than slippery slope. But it makes sense that a climate denier/skeptic/whatever would be using illogical arguments.

[Ban my account ffs!]

I'm with the DOJ on this one. Maybe they should also pursue civil action against people who don't read the article.

Tell me this post (especially the first sentence) was tongue-in-cheek.  

Nope, only the second sentence.

You seriously think that dissenting from the declared orthodoxy is worth a government crackdown?  

You really are far out there....  

OK, at this point it's clear that you're not going to read the article.

It's not punishing random people who don't believe in science; it's punishing fossil fuel companies who knew about it and lied about it. Like this.

Yes, I did read the article.  And if you believe this isn't intended to send a message to the wider climate skeptic community, you are more naive than I thought.  

What exactly is the motive here?

To silence them.  As if it wasn't enough to marginalize them.  

For what reason?

If you are a proponent of man-made climate change who believes the crisis is as dire as you have been led to believe -and you are on a crusade to save the world- then any dissenting voices must therefore be quieted lest they detract from the gravity of the crisis at hand.  

Yes, I do think there are some (see: neveragain) among you who are that crazy.  Including some who hold electoral office.  And that terrifies me.  

I am an opponent of man-made climate change, not a proponent. Also, you haven't really provided any kind of evidence for your claim other than slippery slope. But it makes sense that a climate denier/skeptic/whatever would be using illogical arguments.

What would stop the government from going after skeptical scientists or other non-fossil fuel organizations once a precedent had been set?  

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The left doesn't care about precedents, the ends always justify the means Snowguy.


I know some good ole boys down here that can protect you from the climate gestapo. Probably not safe up in Minnesota. Lot of greenies I would imagine.

Now lets see how many take this last part seriously

[136or142]

This is about business speech which is more restrictive than free speech.  

Two other points:

1.Does anybody believe that intentionally lying is inherently protected speech?

2.Since this seems to have been an obsession with some conservatives, if free speech is suddenly so sacrosanct then why was it illegal when Janet Jackson bared a nipple on live television and why even now can't the broadcast networks show full nudity in the afternoon?

If free speech suddenly goes from being an absolute right to one where other principles can limit it, I know that I'd much rather see intentional lying from a corporation be restricted than some naked bodies on television.

Also, this story was all over the mainstream news a few months ago, so it was covered.  It just wasn't covered with bull sh**t about concern for free speech as the right wing media has just now reported on it.

Also, It's now been pretty much concluded that the Zika virus causes the birth defects in children, and AGW has already enabled the mosquitoes that carry the virus to spread more quickly, there is credible evidence that AGW has contributed to the droughts on the west coast that have effected farming and AGW has almost certainly played a very large role in the recent droughts in Ethiopia that is causing another famine there.

So, this isn't some academic debate about free speech or whether global warming is real or not (on which there is no serious debate), and you idiotic deniers are already causing harm to the world.  I seriously hope that you deniers all die quickly as a result of AGW because not only are you all too stupid to live, but your denialism is causing suffering to innocent people.  The world won't miss you at all, and the sooner you are all dead, the better for everybody else.

And for anybody who believes that is harsh, I care about the lives of the deniers as much as they care for anybody else's life, which is zero.

[Ban my account ffs!]

This is about business speech which is more restrictive than free speech. 

Two other points:

1.Does anybody believe that intentionally lying is inherently protected speech?

2.Since this seems to have been an obsession with some conservatives, if free speech is suddenly so sacrosanct then why was it illegal when Janet Jackson bared a nipple on live television and why even now can't the broadcast networks show full nudity in the afternoon?

If free speech suddenly goes from being an absolute right to one where other principles can limit it, I know that I'd much rather see intentional lying from a corporation be restricted than some naked bodies on television.

Also, this story was all over the mainstream news a few months ago, so it was covered.  It just wasn't covered with bull sh**t about concern for free speech as the right wing media has just now reported on it.

Also, It's now been pretty much concluded that the Zika virus causes the birth defects in children, and AGW has already enabled the mosquitoes that carry the virus to spread more quickly, there is credible evidence that AGW has contributed to the droughts on the west coast that have effected farming and AGW has almost certainly played a very large role in the recent droughts in Ethiopia that is causing another famine there.

So, this isn't some academic debate about free speech or whether global warming is real or not (on which there is no serious debate), and you idiotic deniers are already causing harm to the world.  I seriously hope that you deniers all die quickly as a result of AGW because not only are you all too stupid to live, but your denialism is causing suffering to innocent people.  The world won't miss you at all, and the sooner you are all dead, the better for everybody else.

And for anybody who believes that is harsh, I care about the lives of the deniers as much as they care for anybody else's life, which is zero.

Yeah, it's clear you have a completely dogmatic, irrational, almost religious view on this issue.  It doesn't make you right.  Furthermore:  wishing for people to die is especially poor form and certainly removes any credibility you have regarding the issue...but I'll assume it's because you have a strong faith in your side of this issue and can't control your emotions.  Still, others have been banned for less.

[beaver2.0]

Terrible.  Free speech should be protected.  People have the right to say what they want, even if they want to sound idiotic.