Follow us on...
Follow us on Twitter Follow us on Facebook Watch us on YouTube
Register
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 26
  1. #1
    Atomic Punk lovemachine97(Version 2)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    06.05.03
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    13,962
    Last Online

    12.11.17 @ 04:22 PM
    Likes
    812
    Liked 3,107 Times in 1,819 Posts


    Premium Member

    Default Landmark California bill would allow prosecution of climate-change skeptics

    California's SB-1161 is a bit of a doozy. I can't imagine this passes a test against the first amendment, but once you start eroding rights . . .

    From the Washington Times:

    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.


    Okay, so let's back up. The bill is the logical extension of the election platform of current California Attorney General Kamala Harris. She is part of an alliance of 17 AGs who want to "investigate not only oil, gas, and coal companies, but private advocacy groups and university scientists who have played a role in what is characterized as 'climate denial.'"

    The first, main part of this bill eliminates the statute of limitations on businesses or entities which the state believes deliberately concealed evidence in global warming. Harris, for her part, has a scary history. Federal judges have lambasted Harris' office, saying it suffers from an "epidemic" of prosecutorial misconduct. This bill would give her unprecedented power to go after industries it believes said the wrong things about climate change.

    But it gets worse. Section 2(b) states that, under this law, the legislature will promote "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."

    Notice the workaround of "unfair business practices" in place of what they are actually talking about: speech. But even more chilling is that they not only threaten entities, but those who have supported those activities, all for perhaps having the wrong thoughts on a subject. It isn't even hypothetical. The Reason Foundation, whose science correspondent believes in man-made climate change, has already been listed as one of many targets, including other think tanks, lobbyists, and universities, for subpoena in trying to make a case against Exxon Mobile for undermining climate change science in some fashion since 1977. Anyone they corresponded with Exxon in that time is on a list to be subpoenaed. Reason's science correspondent believes in man-made climate change, but that apparently doesn't matter if the state believes you contributed to climate skepticism.

    Now think of the phrase "financially supported." Do any of you believe this wouldn't be extended to contributors? I once subscribed to Reason Magazine. I know people who have contributed to the Republican Party. Are we too in violation of being believed to contribute to the possible wrong position on climate change.

    This is just . . . wow.

  2. The Following Member Likes This Post:


  3. #2
    Outta Space Cowboy Scotty's Avatar
    Join Date
    01.07.02
    Location
    Virginia, USA
    Posts
    11,019
    Favorite VH Album

    VH I
    Last Online

    12.12.17 @ 05:47 AM
    Likes
    244
    Liked 591 Times in 362 Posts


    Donor

    Default

    Liberty's last throes.

  4. The Following 3 Members Like This Post:


  5. #3
    Good Enough
    Join Date
    09.29.14
    Location
    Knoxville, TN
    Posts
    2,119
    Favorite VH Album

    Fair Warning
    Last Online

    12.11.17 @ 06:23 PM
    Likes
    3,284
    Liked 1,961 Times in 984 Posts

    Default

    So they are advocating "thought crimes" be punished. Scary stuff.

  6. The Following 2 Members Like This Post:


  7. #4
    Atomic Punk rocknblues81's Avatar
    Join Date
    10.11.09
    Posts
    10,505
    Last Online

    12.12.17 @ 03:23 AM
    Likes
    558
    Liked 1,471 Times in 1,002 Posts


    Premium Member

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lovemachine97(Version 2) View Post
    California's SB-1161 is a bit of a doozy. I can't imagine this passes a test against the first amendment, but once you start eroding rights . . .

    From the Washington Times:

    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.


    Okay, so let's back up. The bill is the logical extension of the election platform of current California Attorney General Kamala Harris. She is part of an alliance of 17 AGs who want to "investigate not only oil, gas, and coal companies, but private advocacy groups and university scientists who have played a role in what is characterized as 'climate denial.'"

    The first, main part of this bill eliminates the statute of limitations on businesses or entities which the state believes deliberately concealed evidence in global warming. Harris, for her part, has a scary history. Federal judges have lambasted Harris' office, saying it suffers from an "epidemic" of prosecutorial misconduct. This bill would give her unprecedented power to go after industries it believes said the wrong things about climate change.

    But it gets worse. Section 2(b) states that, under this law, the legislature will promote "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."

    Notice the workaround of "unfair business practices" in place of what they are actually talking about: speech. But even more chilling is that they not only threaten entities, but those who have supported those activities, all for perhaps having the wrong thoughts on a subject. It isn't even hypothetical. The Reason Foundation, whose science correspondent believes in man-made climate change, has already been listed as one of many targets, including other think tanks, lobbyists, and universities, for subpoena in trying to make a case against Exxon Mobile for undermining climate change science in some fashion since 1977. Anyone they corresponded with Exxon in that time is on a list to be subpoenaed. Reason's science correspondent believes in man-made climate change, but that apparently doesn't matter if the state believes you contributed to climate skepticism.

    Now think of the phrase "financially supported." Do any of you believe this wouldn't be extended to contributors? I once subscribed to Reason Magazine. I know people who have contributed to the Republican Party. Are we too in violation of being believed to contribute to the possible wrong position on climate change.

    This is just . . . wow.
    I'm telling you man... These progressives are psychotic. I know I say some shit, but at the end of the day, actions speak. This is tyrannical BS.
    Michael Caine on Jaws: The Revenge:

    "I have never seen it, but by all accounts it is terrible. However, I have seen the house that it built and it is terrific."

    Samuel Johnson 1775 : “Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel”

    "McDonalds is The Antichrist" - Bill Hicks

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jSH6ofHbeUw

  8. The Following 4 Members Like This Post:


  9. #5
    Forum Frontman It's Mike's Avatar
    Join Date
    03.26.06
    Age
    43
    Location
    Vaughan, Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    34,080
    Favorite VH Album

    like them all, no favourite
    Last Online

    12.12.17 @ 06:13 AM
    Likes
    1,314
    Liked 6,670 Times in 3,696 Posts

    Default

    You guys are so fucked. What the hell happened?

    Sent from my Z10 using Tapatalk

  10. The Following Member Likes This Post:


  11. #6
    Atomic Punk rocknblues81's Avatar
    Join Date
    10.11.09
    Posts
    10,505
    Last Online

    12.12.17 @ 03:23 AM
    Likes
    558
    Liked 1,471 Times in 1,002 Posts


    Premium Member

    Default

    This kind of shit dwarfs the whole Transgender bathroom arguments.
    Michael Caine on Jaws: The Revenge:

    "I have never seen it, but by all accounts it is terrible. However, I have seen the house that it built and it is terrific."

    Samuel Johnson 1775 : “Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel”

    "McDonalds is The Antichrist" - Bill Hicks

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jSH6ofHbeUw

  12. #7
    Atomic Punk lovemachine97(Version 2)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    06.05.03
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    13,962
    Last Online

    12.11.17 @ 04:22 PM
    Likes
    812
    Liked 3,107 Times in 1,819 Posts


    Premium Member

    Default

    Ironically, this law is anti-science. The scientific method is based upon disproof, not proof. You constantly ask questions, repeating experiments to see if the results are repeatable. Scientists do this over and over in an attempt to disprove a particular study. Science is never, ever settled. Scientific theories (evolution, gravity, etc.) are the best explanation for observable facts . . . but only until they are disproven. If you make it illegal to disagree, science cannot advance.

    Quote Originally Posted by It's Mike View Post
    You guys are so fucked. What the hell happened?

    Sent from my Z10 using Tapatalk
    I have a theory, but I'm not sure a lot of people will like it. In short, look at two things: what is going on on college campuses nowadays, and then look at the comments/responses to a recent LA Times story on how few conservatives are teaching on college campuses and if diversity should include hiring more of them.

    I've posted here and there about how every time I think we have officially lost our damn minds with college, a new story comes out proving me wrong. Yesterday, it was students at Yale officially petitioning the English Department to stop teaching Chaucer, Shakespeare, Milton, T.S. Eliot, etc. "It’s time for the English major to decolonize — not diversify — its course offerings," they say. In other words, if there aren't non-White, non-heterosexual male poets of that time worth studying, then the class should be eliminated entirely. Add this to all kinds of other craziness on campus, be it race and sex restricted 'safe spaces' (only Blacks can be in the Black safe space, women in the women safe place), illegal language, cultural appropriation, not teaching rape law, trigger warnings, no press freedom, and one's "right" not to be confronted with differing opinions. The list goes on.

    To the second thing I point out, both the left and right like using government for promoting their worldview, but only one of those groups thinks, unequivocally, that they are smarter and know better than the other side. Why shouldn't college include conservative diversity? Overwhelmingly, the response is that knowledge and intelligence is a monopoly held by liberal thought.

    If you think you know better than anyone else, especially those who disagree, AND you're inclined to use government to impose your worldview, then isn't this sort of legislation inevitable in a state like California, dominated by Democrats? This is EXACTLY what the first amendment was meant to stop--quieting your political opposition. What's funny is the left has even labeled people who believe in man-made climate change but don't believe in ignoring economic costs as climate change deniers (see: Bjorn Lomborg).

    This is one of the things that has drawn me in the exact opposite direction as for as philosophy of government. I don't know what people are going to do. I don't know what's best for everyone; I'm not that smart. But, as long as there is a powerful group that thinks they do and their only opposition is lessening in power at best, imploding at worst, then this is the direction we're headed.
    Last edited by lovemachine97(Version 2); 06.02.16 at 09:41 PM.

  13. The Following 3 Members Like This Post:


  14. #8
    Atomic Punk Dave's Dreidel's Avatar
    Join Date
    01.10.05
    Age
    47
    Location
    Kate Upton's Closet
    Posts
    37,849
    Favorite VH Album

    Alex, Dave, Ed and Mike
    Favorite VH Song

    The songs with Ed on them
    Last Online

    12.12.17 @ 06:20 AM
    Likes
    3,497
    Liked 18,093 Times in 8,939 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by It's Mike View Post
    You guys are so fucked. What the hell happened?

    Sent from my Z10 using Tapatalk
    Stupid people make stupid laws.
    Taylor Swift is nice to look at. Adele can sing.

    Emperor Brett - "I can't believe you guys are analyzing song-by-song Van Halen III? What next, analyzing the script of Stroker Ace looking for some shred of Citizen Kane?"

    David Lee Roth did the impossible. He made Van Halen better. Deal with it!

    Preferred pronouns: he/him/his

    Hurricane Halen - Let's all gingery touch our sword tips!!!

    DONATE TO THE LINKS YA CHEAP BASTARDS!!!!

  15. #9
    Atomic Punk ziggysmalls's Avatar
    Join Date
    11.24.03
    Location
    Cleveland, Oh
    Posts
    12,964
    Favorite VH Album

    Fair Warning
    Favorite VH Song

    Dance the Night Away
    Last Online

    12.12.17 @ 05:02 AM
    Likes
    2,594
    Liked 4,792 Times in 2,444 Posts


    Premium Member

    Default

    These people are the ones afraid of Trump

    I am far more scared of them then the Comb Over

  16. The Following Member Likes This Post:


  17. #10
    Atomic Punk Dave's Dreidel's Avatar
    Join Date
    01.10.05
    Age
    47
    Location
    Kate Upton's Closet
    Posts
    37,849
    Favorite VH Album

    Alex, Dave, Ed and Mike
    Favorite VH Song

    The songs with Ed on them
    Last Online

    12.12.17 @ 06:20 AM
    Likes
    3,497
    Liked 18,093 Times in 8,939 Posts

    Default

    There is something scarily Nazi'esque about making laws saying "if you disagree with an unproven (but commonly held) hypothesis, you will be subject to monetary and possibly criminal penalties."

    It reminds me of the Dark Ages and the Catholic Church probably more accurately.

    But hey, it's just the First Amendment.
    Last edited by Dave's Dreidel; 06.03.16 at 08:57 AM.
    Taylor Swift is nice to look at. Adele can sing.

    Emperor Brett - "I can't believe you guys are analyzing song-by-song Van Halen III? What next, analyzing the script of Stroker Ace looking for some shred of Citizen Kane?"

    David Lee Roth did the impossible. He made Van Halen better. Deal with it!

    Preferred pronouns: he/him/his

    Hurricane Halen - Let's all gingery touch our sword tips!!!

    DONATE TO THE LINKS YA CHEAP BASTARDS!!!!

  18. The Following 3 Members Like This Post:


  19. #11
    Atomic Punk Dave's Dreidel's Avatar
    Join Date
    01.10.05
    Age
    47
    Location
    Kate Upton's Closet
    Posts
    37,849
    Favorite VH Album

    Alex, Dave, Ed and Mike
    Favorite VH Song

    The songs with Ed on them
    Last Online

    12.12.17 @ 06:20 AM
    Likes
    3,497
    Liked 18,093 Times in 8,939 Posts

    Default

    The more I think about this the scarier it is.

    The ramifications are endless.

    Disagree with the war in Iraq? GUILTY!

    Disagree with assassinating Americans without due process. GUILTY!!

    Disagree with performing black ops and drone strikes in sovereign nations? GUILTY!!!

    This is totalitarianism, pure and simple. People talk about Trump being a fascist...he isn't. He's a LOT of "ists", but fascist he isn't. The modern progressive arm of the Democratic party is fascist.
    Taylor Swift is nice to look at. Adele can sing.

    Emperor Brett - "I can't believe you guys are analyzing song-by-song Van Halen III? What next, analyzing the script of Stroker Ace looking for some shred of Citizen Kane?"

    David Lee Roth did the impossible. He made Van Halen better. Deal with it!

    Preferred pronouns: he/him/his

    Hurricane Halen - Let's all gingery touch our sword tips!!!

    DONATE TO THE LINKS YA CHEAP BASTARDS!!!!

  20. The Following 4 Members Like This Post:


  21. #12
    Atomic Punk bsbll4's Avatar
    Join Date
    02.18.03
    Age
    34
    Location
    St. Louis, MO
    Posts
    8,622
    Favorite VH Album

    Van Halen/ADKOT
    Favorite VH Song

    Hot For Teacher
    Last Online

    12.11.17 @ 01:56 PM
    Likes
    565
    Liked 2,210 Times in 1,114 Posts


    Premium Member

    Default

    It's frightening to think that someone who attended an American school and had a lesson in civics and the first amendment would ever think this is a good idea. It's not like it takes a giant leap of logic to understand the ramifications of what they're setting a precedent for.
    CNN may think my opinion matters, but you shouldn't.

  22. The Following 2 Members Like This Post:


  23. #13
    Atomic Punk lovemachine97(Version 2)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    06.05.03
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    13,962
    Last Online

    12.11.17 @ 04:22 PM
    Likes
    812
    Liked 3,107 Times in 1,819 Posts


    Premium Member

    Default

    Michael Crichton was right when he said environmentalism had come a religion.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  24. The Following Member Likes This Post:


  25. #14
    Good Enough
    Join Date
    09.29.14
    Location
    Knoxville, TN
    Posts
    2,119
    Favorite VH Album

    Fair Warning
    Last Online

    12.11.17 @ 06:23 PM
    Likes
    3,284
    Liked 1,961 Times in 984 Posts

    Default



    Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!

  26. #15
    Atomic Punk lovemachine97(Version 2)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    06.05.03
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    13,962
    Last Online

    12.11.17 @ 04:22 PM
    Likes
    812
    Liked 3,107 Times in 1,819 Posts


    Premium Member

    Default

    You know, I just did a quick check of my Facebook feed, and it's just super depressing.

    I said earlier part of the problem is that the people making these kinds of laws believe liberalism comes with intelligence and knowledge. They know better.

    Well, here's another thing. Looking at Trump and Hilary as the authoritarians they are, I think most Americans don't care much about their rights. And perhaps most insidiously, it seems as if there is a long game here on the left discrediting those who wrote the Constitution in order to undermine it. This gets back to college campuses. 'Hate speech isn't covered under free speech.' Once we decide to teach this to kids and implement it on college campuses, where our future leaders are going to school, you undermine the Constitution a bit more.

    I would say this can't possibly be constitutional, but I look at SCOTUS decisions and think that it actually could be. People throw around the "fire in a crowded theater" argument without realizing it was used as an argument to suppress anti-war speech. Justice Holmes later realized he was wrong. Point being, two appointees by either major candidate could put the court in a position to approve this law IMO.

 

 

Similar Threads

  1. Scientists On Climate Change
    By Motherload in forum Political Underground
    Replies: 41
    Last Post: 12.09.16, 05:35 PM
  2. Penn State Concerned About The Ethics Of Climate Change Skeptics
    By rocknblues81 in forum VH Fans Meeting Place (Non-Music)
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01.04.12, 01:06 PM
  3. Global Warming/Climate Change/Climate Disruption thread
    By rocknblues81 in forum VH Fans Meeting Place (Non-Music)
    Replies: 56
    Last Post: 09.28.11, 11:26 AM
  4. Increased Employment Is Climate Change's Silver Lining: UN
    By voivod in forum VH Fans Meeting Place (Non-Music)
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12.28.07, 08:11 AM
  5. Climate Change Drying up Mountains in Western U.S.
    By janthraxx in forum VH Fans Meeting Place (Non-Music)
    Replies: 47
    Last Post: 12.27.07, 12:17 PM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •