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

[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.

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.

Yes, those who acknowledge the reality of climate change have a 'religious view' of the issue.  That's one of the meaningless braindead talking points taken straight from the denialist play book.

BTW, if wishing for people to die is 'poor form' then what is causing people to die as is already occurring with global warming?

[dead0man]

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.

Remember kids, local weather can prove AGW exists, but never ever the other way 'round.

[136or142]

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.

Remember kids, local weather can prove AGW exists, but never ever the other way 'round.

Except if a cold snap hits, it's logical to assume it's simple variability, but in all of the events I mentioned, there are around a half a dozen data points that show AGW played a large role.  

So, your argument is nothing more than a simple minded comparison.

[dead0man]

Except I'm not making an argument.  I'm pointing out a flaw in the standard spiel.  I don't expect you to see it, this is more for the reader.

[136or142]

Four attorneys general are investigating Exxon Mobil’s public statements and private scientific knowledge over the years, and the company struck back on Wednesday in a filing in Texas against Claude Earl Walker, the attorney general of the United States Virgin Islands, and a private law firm working with his office on the investigation.
The filing called Mr. Walker’s actions a “flagrant misuse of law enforcement power” that “violate Exxon Mobil’s constitutionally protected rights of freedom of speech.

Interesting that they want intentional lying to be protected 'free speech.'
If that's the case, I understand that:

1.Andrew P. Swiger, ExxonMobil Senior Vice President and Principle Financial Officer
2.Michael J. Dolan, ExxonMobil Senior Vice President
3.Darren W. Woods ExxonMobil President
4.J.P (Jack) Williams ExxonMobil Senior Vice President
5.Mark W. Albers ExxonMobil Senior Vice President
And
6.Rex W. Tillerson, ExxonMobil  Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

are all serial rapists and murderers. To be sure, I don't know this for a fact, but this is what I've heard.
However, even if I state this as a fact and am either wrong or lying, it seems according to ExxonMobil that my lying or misstatement should be considered protected free speech.

So, according to them, I'm fine either way.

[136or142]

Except I'm not making an argument.  I'm pointing out a flaw in the standard spiel.  I don't expect you to see it, this is more for the reader.

So apply your statement in cases where it applies and not with my argument where it doesn't apply.

[dead0man]

Four attorneys general are investigating Exxon Mobil’s public statements and private scientific knowledge over the years, and the company struck back on Wednesday in a filing in Texas against Claude Earl Walker, the attorney general of the United States Virgin Islands, and a private law firm working with his office on the investigation.
The filing called Mr. Walker’s actions a “flagrant misuse of law enforcement power” that “violate Exxon Mobil’s constitutionally protected rights of freedom of speech.

Interesting that they want intentional lying to be protected 'free speech.'
If that's the case, I understand that:

1.Andrew P. Swiger, ExxonMobil Senior Vice President and Principle Financial Officer
2.Michael J. Dolan, ExxonMobil Senior Vice President
3.Darren W. Woods ExxonMobil President
4.J.P (Jack) Williams ExxonMobil Senior Vice President
5.Mark W. Albers ExxonMobil Senior Vice President
And
6.Rex W. Tillerson, ExxonMobil  Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

are all serial rapists and murderers. To be sure, I don't know this for a fact, but this is what I've heard.
However, even if I state this as a fact and am either wrong or lying, it seems according to ExxonMobil that my lying or misstatement should be considered protected free speech.

So, according to them, I'm fine either way.

You say all this as if it's illegal to lie (it's not).

Except I'm not making an argument.  I'm pointing out a flaw in the standard spiel.  I don't expect you to see it, this is more for the reader.

So apply your statement in cases where it applies and not with my argument where it doesn't apply.

Right, when your side uses local weather as example of AGW it's fine, further proof in fact, but when the other side does it, those people are idiots.  This makes perfect sense (somehow).

[136or142]

Four attorneys general are investigating Exxon Mobil’s public statements and private scientific knowledge over the years, and the company struck back on Wednesday in a filing in Texas against Claude Earl Walker, the attorney general of the United States Virgin Islands, and a private law firm working with his office on the investigation.
The filing called Mr. Walker’s actions a “flagrant misuse of law enforcement power” that “violate Exxon Mobil’s constitutionally protected rights of freedom of speech.

Interesting that they want intentional lying to be protected 'free speech.'
If that's the case, I understand that:

1.Andrew P. Swiger, ExxonMobil Senior Vice President and Principle Financial Officer
2.Michael J. Dolan, ExxonMobil Senior Vice President
3.Darren W. Woods ExxonMobil President
4.J.P (Jack) Williams ExxonMobil Senior Vice President
5.Mark W. Albers ExxonMobil Senior Vice President
And
6.Rex W. Tillerson, ExxonMobil  Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

are all serial rapists and murderers. To be sure, I don't know this for a fact, but this is what I've heard.
However, even if I state this as a fact and am either wrong or lying, it seems according to ExxonMobil that my lying or misstatement should be considered protected free speech.

So, according to them, I'm fine either way.

You say all this as if it's illegal to lie (it's not).

Except I'm not making an argument.  I'm pointing out a flaw in the standard spiel.  I don't expect you to see it, this is more for the reader.

So apply your statement in cases where it applies and not with my argument where it doesn't apply.

Right, when your side uses local weather as example of AGW it's fine, further proof in fact, but when the other side does it, those people are idiots.  This makes perfect sense (somehow).

1.I never said illegal, ExxonMobil argued in terms of 'protected rights of free speech.' And your claim is wrong as well.  Dishonest commercial speech, in the form of false advertising or product packaging, can, in fact, be illegal. As are false prospectuses and financial reports and intentionally false financial statements.

2."Local weather" as in a short term cold snap or heat wave is one thing, and a few incidents of longer term anomalous weather can be possible, but anomalous weather occurring all over the world that matches the predictions made by the meteorologists and other global warming scientists is not merely 'local weather.'

So, you either can't read what I write properly or you are, in fact, an idiot.

[dead0man]

To be fair, it could be both.

[Mr. Reactionary]

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

Well, no and yes. The Supreme Court does have a different standard of reviewing commercial advertising speech, however commercial speech must involve the proposal of a transaction, which is where the commerce part comes in. [Bolger v. Youngs Drug, 463 U.S. 60]. Speech by a business is not commercial speech just because it is made by a business.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Only to the extent that there is fraudulent intent and identifiable harm because of it. The Supreme Court recently invalidated a federal law which criminalized lying about receiving military medals, even though lying is bad speech. [US v. Alvarez, 132 S. Ct. 2537]. You would need to show that the studies were doctored in some way AND that because they were doctored, something bad happened. And considering emissions have been trending downward and the greens have had a lot of victories, it'd be hard to show that some specific study undermined the global warming movement so much that it caused X damages to the environment.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I mean, I'm opposed to FCC censorship of the airways as well, however the current legal distinction is that radio and basic television spectrum frequencies are "public airways" and are subject to general regulation by the feds. [Red Lion v. FCC, 395 U.S. 367]. Citizens are entitled to receive these frequencies, including in their house. The near instantaneous transmission of content however can allow for super dee duper bad stuff to slip by. Because citizens are supposed to feel safe in their house, and also supposed to be entitled to receive TV and radio transmissions, fleeting nudity/profanity can create a "captive audience" which the feds may protect against. [FCC v. Pacifica, 438 U.S. 726]. This principle is also applied to unsolicited porn ads that are mailed to your house, or George Carlin's 7 Dirty Words monologue on the radio. [Ginzburg v. US, 383 U.S. 463]. The same problem does not apply however to things like phone sex hotlines, or cable, or internet websites, because a person chooses to receive the content and is therefore not a captive audience. [Sable Communications v. FCC, 492 U.S. 115 ; U.S. v. Playboy, 529 U.S. 803]

Again I don't agree with the level of fed regulation over public airways, but the distinction is that in one case the government is regulating activity over de facto government property which is targeted at a vulnerable audience, and in the other the feds are harassing scientists, even though no one is forced to read the offending study and there are plenty of rival studies that are freely available.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Did mommy forget to pack your apple juice?

[136or142]

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

Well, no and yes. The Supreme Court does have a different standard of reviewing commercial advertising speech, however commercial speech must involve the proposal of a transaction, which is where the commerce part comes in. [Bolger v. Youngs Drug, 463 U.S. 60]. Speech by a business is not commercial speech just because it is made by a business.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Only to the extent that there is fraudulent intent and identifiable harm because of it. The Supreme Court recently invalidated a federal law which criminalized lying about receiving military medals, even though lying is bad speech. [US v. Alvarez, 132 S. Ct. 2537]. You would need to show that the studies were doctored in some way AND that because they were doctored, something bad happened. And considering emissions have been trending downward and the greens have had a lot of victories, it'd be hard to show that some specific study undermined the global warming movement so much that it caused X damages to the environment.

I'm not sure that those are the grounds on which Exxon/Mobil is being investigated and I tend to think if those are the grounds the first test would be fairly simple to prove. 

The second test, if how you report it would probably be virtually impossible to meet, but if the real goal of the government is to show that the companies knew that global warming is real and lied about it, securing a conviction would not be nearly as important as getting the documents released.

Should that occur, as with the cigarette companies, it may be possible for lawyers to sue collectively on behalf of aggrieved parties in civil courts. 

That said, my personal preference in this case would simply be for whichever government has Exxon/Mobil's business license to simply not renew it and put them out of business in less than a second.

[I’m not Stu]

Climate change denial is a 1st Amendment right.