Satire is Satire... I think most of us can tell when someone is joking and when they're trying to convey information...
In 1776 - ~1900 it was 'buyer beware' you had the constitutional right to say anything you wanted about the product you were selling... how did that change?
This isn't as 'outlandish' as it seems... if I disparage someones business publicly with false accusations they have the right to sue me for libel. What has been proposed is that we expand these libel laws to include harm to health and general welfare. If a climatologist witnesses the publicizing of information he knows to conflict with factual information he should be able to press a libel suit in court just as if he were the owner of that business.
So Oprah could be sued for her segment on vaccines with Jenny McCarthy in a trial no different than any libel case. Or at minimum barred from presenting that information again without the evidence to support their claims.
Are you claiming that satirists are not trying to convey information? That may be the case, or it may not. A lot of satire/jokes can be more truthful and meaningful than 'serious' media outlets (case in point: George Carlin, Daily show, etc...). And
no, 'most of us can tell' is not a valid legal or moral argument for what is acceptable speech (satire or not).
You are 'expanding' the definition of 'libel' WAY beyond any reason. Libel involve 'false' claims that tarnish a business or person's reputation negatively. You are saying that libel should be redefined to mean something extremely broad: "
expand these libel laws to include harm to health and general welfare". What does that mean? It means that the government needs to regulate speech when it decides (rightly or wrongly) that a certain issue is 'harmful' to public 'health and welfare'. This sounds exactly like totalitarianism: in China criticizing the party is a threat to public safety (revolts, protests etc...), in Saudi Arabia -> homosexuality is harmful to public health and morality. You may say these are extreme examples, but in fact, the lack of rights in these countries directly stems from a lack of Freedom of Speech & expression. Less extreme examples include several European ('first world') countries where the right to criticize certain religions is eroding (so called 'hate speech' restrictions). You can see where I am going with this. The government (ANY government) cannot be trusted with such power. This is why the First Amendment is so important.
Let me give a more concrete example: instead of climate change, lets go with some religious claims. I think that some religious claims are ridiculous
and more importantly very dangerous to public health and general welfare. A belief in an after-life and Armageddon can lead people to do insane things. These are beliefs which are strongly held by some US congress members, who can authorize wars. This is no laughing matter and I am entirely serious: In some ways the increased possibility of nuclear war brought upon directly from these beliefs is a serious threat to public safety. Does this mean we should now ban these ideas because they are not scientifically provable? Absolutely not.
Another example: what about people that claim that eating animal products everyday is good for your health and increases life span? I am sure this claim is false (as backed up by scientific consensus), and I am sure those who believe these claims may be 'harmed' (perhaps more harmful than climate change). Does this mean the government should regulate what can and cannot be said on this topic as well? I'd wager you would say yes.
Which topics are important enough for censorship and which are ok?
Where does this end? This is what people were talking about when they criticized you and Raffy for your Orwellian ideas.
