Free Speech and Climate Change Skeptics & Deniers

[falconeer]

This matter has been discussed long ago in this thread. I suggest you to read all the thread. There is a difference between individual freedom of speech and misleading statements on the Climate Change/Global Warming issue.

I did read the entire thread at one point or another.

No Raffy, there is no difference between different types of statements that are allowed under Free Speech. Please read my recent comments to nwdiver about the topic. Free Speech does not have categories. Any statement (true or false or misleading) is protected by free speech (for the full explanation read my recent comments). This is not my opinion, it is the law in the US.

What nwdiver is suggesting is that we change the law so that free speech does not protect 'false' claims as determined by scientific evidence. This is a topic I also discussed at length with nwdiver.

My point is that right now, in the US, 'false' claims by individuals are protected under freedom of speech. You want to change the law and restrict Free Speech. This is what the debate is about.

 

[Raffy.Roma]

I did read the entire thread at one point or another.

No Raffy, there is no difference between different types of statements that are allowed under Free Speech. Please read my recent comments to nwdiver about the topic. Free Speech does not have categories. Any statement (true or false or misleading) is protected by free speech (for the full explanation read my recent comments). This is not my opinion, it is the law in the US.

What nwdiver is suggesting is that we change the law so that free speech does not protect 'false' claims as determined by scientific evidence. This is a topic I also discussed at length with nwdiver.

My point is that right now, in the US, 'false' claims by individuals are protected under freedom of speech. You want to change the law and restrict Free Speech. This is what the debate is about.

To this concern two facts should be considered IMO:

1) The US Department of Defense considers the Climate Change/Global Warming issue a threat bigger than terrorism.

2) The CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is today 400 ppm, a value that has never been got in the last 800.000 years. Furthermore in 2050 such a concentration will be in the best case 450 ppm but it could be also 550 ppm.

So the situation is really dangerous. Under these circumstances if it is necessary to change the law to improve the situation of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere what's wrong with that?

I also would like to say that I agree with nwdiver for the matter of false claims as determined by scientific evidence.

 

[falconeer]

I am glad we sorted out the confusion about what Free Speech really means.

1) You are suggesting changing/destroying one of the most important right in the US, the First Amendment to the constitution: this guarantees freedom of speech.
2) You want to punish people for what they say, because 'the situation is really dangerous'

Can you really not see what can go wrong with that? The government cannot be trusted with so much power. It is a slippery slope.

Raffy, I read all of your comments in this thread. Can you please also read my recent comments as well? I discussed this issue with nwdiver, I do not want to repeat my self.

 

[Nathan Smith]

Raffy, unfortunately people have been using the term law in relation to free speech. Here in the US it isn't law, per say, it's the constitution. Which requires a whole new level of effort to change. And one I wouldn't support.

 

[Raffy.Roma]

I am glad we sorted out the confusion about what Free Speech really means.

1) You are suggesting changing/destroying one of the most important right in the US, the First Amendment to the constitution: this guarantees freedom of speech.
2) You want to punish people for what they say, because 'the situation is really dangerous'

Can you really not see what can go wrong with that? The government cannot be trusted with so much power. It is a slippery slope.

Raffy, I read all of your comments in this thread. Can you please also read my recent comments as well? I discussed this issue with nwdiver, I do not want to repeat my self.

I read your posts and you are raising a good matter of legal kind. I have not a legal background and for this reason I cannot answer to you but IMO it's possibile to respect the First Amendment and to prevent false statements on the Climate Change/Global Warming issue be spread on the media in the same time. It's just a legal matter to be solved IMO.

 

[falconeer]

I am not a legal expert, but it is quite clear (from the wording and the interpretation of the first amendment by supreme court over the last 225 years) that the kind of change you are proposing is not just a small legal matter. I don't think it is possible to respect the first amendment and restrict speech in such a way. Change is possible, but it would require either:
1) removing the First Amendment (extremely unlikely, even less likely than removing the Second amendment)
2) An interpretation by the supreme court that is completely opposite to nearly all past decisions (this would open a huge problem, since climate change is not the only issue which this new standard would apply) This is also very, very, unlikely.

Both the options are very unlikely, primarily because people don't like when you take their freedom away from them. It is not a matter of selfishness, these freedoms are at the core of US national values. You will not find public support for your view, that is just reality.

Raffy, I understand where you are coming from: you just want to solve the problem of climate change, and you believe that some individuals and corporations are standing in the way by making false statements. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you are not too interested in the philosophical/political/moral/legal discussion, you are interested in practical solutions.

So let me repeat what bonnie and others were saying: advocating for these kind of changes in US law is not practical: it is a waste of energy. Actually, it is worse than a waste of energy, because by advocating a position so against US national values you will make people angry and even less likely to support your cause. The best practical solution is to educate and inform the public: fight the misinformation with correct information; debunk the myths; point out who has monetary incentives to lie; etc...

My personal view is that this would be the best way to achieve your goal even if restricting speech was practical, because I don't believe that the government should restrict speech. But again, that doesn't matter, the practical solution remains the same.

 

[flankspeed8]

To this concern two facts should be considered IMO:

1) The US Department of Defense considers the Climate Change/Global Warming issue a threat bigger than terrorism.

And this scares the heck out of me. I hope that you don't think that this is an apolitical stance. As a former Navy officer this scares the heck out of me, especially as people are being be-headded and burned alive. Nothing but noise and distraction peppered with some control.

 

[Nathan Smith]

As a retired AF officer, I agree with flankspeed88...

 

[Robert.Boston]

I think @bonnie is wise in suggesting that one should pick one's battles carefully. Outlawing the expression of unfounded opinions or even outright lies is simply not going to happen in the U.S. My concern isn't in suppressing these voices, but in neutralizing them from the public debate.

There was a very disturbing article on NPR yesterday about how Wyoming is changing the science curriculum to deemphasize climate change issues and to inject alternative theories, notwithstanding the complete lack of any scientific basis for such alternatives. As the article pointed out, the energy industry (coal, oil & gas) is by far Wyoming's biggest business, and fact that it is able, directly or indirectly, to force teachers to put deeply flawed science in front of children, dressed up with the same credibility as peer-reviewed conclusions, is--or should be--criminal. Unlike the parallel evolution/creation debate, there's not even a colorable religious freedom argument about climate change.

 

[SW2Fiddler]

I am not a legal expert, but ... it would require either:
1) removing the First Amendment (extremely unlikely, even less likely than removing the Second amendment)
2) An interpretation by the supreme court that is completely opposite to nearly all past decisions ... This is also very, very, unlikely.

3) Seeing as these are indeed quite unlikely -- Model the proposed law after one or more of the Veggie Libel Laws already on the books.

These laws vary significantly from state to state, but food libel laws typically allow a food manufacturer or processor to sue a person or group who makes disparaging comments about their food products. In some states these laws also establish different standards of proof than are used in traditional American libel lawsuits, including the practice of placing the burden of proof on the party being sued.
​

Replace "food manufacturer or processor" with "citizen"
Replace "disparaging comments about their food products" with "false statements regarding anthropogenic climate change"
Or some such.

Other than pointing out this precedent that leaves the Bill Of Rights intact, I would say that generally, the remedy for "bad free speech" is "more free speech" - I though it was a Molly Ivins gem, but to my embarrassment I can't find a citation.

 

[ggies07]

I think @bonnie is wise in suggesting that one should pick one's battles carefully. Outlawing the expression of unfounded opinions or even outright lies is simply not going to happen in the U.S. My concern isn't in suppressing these voices, but in neutralizing them from the public debate.

There was a very disturbing article on NPR yesterday about how Wyoming is changing the science curriculum to deemphasize climate change issues and to inject alternative theories, notwithstanding the complete lack of any scientific basis for such alternatives. As the article pointed out, the energy industry (coal, oil & gas) is by far Wyoming's biggest business, and fact that it is able, directly or indirectly, to force teachers to put deeply flawed science in front of children, dressed up with the same credibility as peer-reviewed conclusions, is--or should be--criminal. Unlike the parallel evolution/creation debate, there's not even a colorable religious freedom argument about climate change.

This happened in Texas too and it's what's wrong with this nation. We hide behind the 1st amendment in situations like these, arguing that we can't touch it yet we have big corporations using money to move their agenda. My daughter is about to move into elementary grades and I get quite upset seeing these situations. I will not have the gov't throw in my face the 1st amendment while her education is being bought out by a dying industry that is destroying our earth.

 

[Robert.Boston]

In trying to track the quote for @SW2Fiddler, I came across the following passage in a Supreme Court concurring opinion written by Justice Brandeis. I found it an interesting read, particularly because it lays out a particular test for when freedom of speech can be suspended:

WHITNEY v. CALIFORNIA, 274 U.S. 357, 375-378 (1927).Justice Louis Brandeis, concurring:

Those who won our independence believed that the final end of the State was to make men free to develop their faculties; and that in its government the deliberative forces should prevail over the arbitrary. They valued liberty both as an end and as a means. They believed liberty to be the secret of happiness and courage to be the secret of liberty. They believed that freedom to think as you will and to speak as you think are means indispensable to the discovery and spread of political truth; that without free speech and assembly discussion would be futile; that with them, discussion affords ordinarily adequate protection against the dissemination of noxious doctrine; that the greatest menace to freedom is an inert people; that public discussion is a political duty; and that this should be a fundamental principle of the American government.

They recognized the risks to which all human institutions are subject. But they knew that order cannot be secured merely through fear of punishment for its infraction; that it is hazardous to discourage thought, hope and imagination; that fear breeds repression; that repression breeds hate; that hate menaces stable government; that the path of safety lies in the opportunity to discuss freely supposed grievances and proposed remedies; and that the fitting remedy for evil counsels is good ones. Believing in the power of reason as applied through public discussion, they eschewed silence coerced by law -- the argument of force in its worst form. Recognizing the occasional tyrannies of governing majorities, they amended the Constitution so that free speech and assembly should be guaranteed.

Fear of serious injury cannot alone justify suppression of free speech and assembly. Men feared witches and burnt women. It is the function of speech to free men from the bondage of irrational fears. To justify suppression of free speech there must be reasonable ground to fear that serious evil will result if free speech is practiced. There must be reasonable ground to believe that the danger apprehended is imminent. There must be reasonable ground to believe that the evil to be prevented is a serious one.

Those who won our independence by revolution were not cowards. They did not fear political change. They did not exalt order at the cost of liberty. To courageous, self-reliant men, with confidence in the power of free and fearless reasoning applied through the processes of popular government, no danger flowing from speech can be deemed clear and present, unless the incidence of the evil apprehended is so imminent that it may befall before there is opportunity for full discussion. If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence. Only an emergency can justify repression. Such must be the rule if authority is to be reconciled with freedom. Such, in my opinion, is the command of the Constitution. It is therefore always open to Americans to challenge a law abridging free speech and assembly by showing that there was no emergency justifying it.

Moreover, even imminent danger cannot justify resort to prohibition of these functions essential to effective democracy, unless the evil apprehended is relatively serious. Prohibition of free speech and assembly is a measure so stringent that it would be inappropriate as the means for averting a relatively trivial harm to society. The fact that speech is likely to result in some violence or in destruction of property is not enough to justify its suppression. There must be the probability of serious injury to the State. Among free men, the deterrents ordinarily to be applied to prevent crime are education and punishment for violations of the law, not abridgment of the rights of free speech and assembly.

Full text of case available at: http://laws.findlaw.com/US/274/357.html

(Emphasis mine). I believe climate change meets the "relatively serious" standard but not the "imminent" requirement.

 

[bonnie]

In trying to track the quote for @SW2Fiddler, I came across the following passage in a Supreme Court concurring opinion written by Justice Brandeis. I found it an interesting read, particularly because it lays out a particular test for when freedom of speech can be suspended:

(Emphasis mine). I believe climate change meets the "relatively serious" standard but not the "imminent" requirement.

Thanks for finding this, Robert. I had considered the example of yelling 'fire!' in a crowded movie theater, but without this, it just would have escalated the discussion further.

Yelling 'fire!' would meet the criteria of 'imminent'. But climate change, regardless of the long-term impact, does not (imo).

 

[Robert.Boston]

Thanks, Bonnie. I enjoyed reading the magisterial prose, an increasing rarity in modern discourse.

An interesting sidenote: Justice Brandeis is credited with creating the concept of "the right to privacy" in an 1890 article he co-authored in the Harvard Law Review. Notwithstanding its age, it remains a remarkably foresighted article that is even more applicable today than in 1890.

 

[FlasherZ]

In trying to track the quote for @SW2Fiddler, I came across the following passage in a Supreme Court concurring opinion written by Justice Brandeis. I found it an interesting read, particularly because it lays out a particular test for when freedom of speech can be suspended:

(Emphasis mine). I believe climate change meets the "relatively serious" standard but not the "imminent" requirement.

I'll also point out another line that seems particularly important:

To justify suppression of free speech there must be reasonable ground to fear that serious evil will result if free speech is practiced.

Now, this doesn't mean the "serious evil" of the effects of climate change; this means the "serious evil" of the speech itself (like the trampling that would likely come from yelling "fire" in a crowded auditorium). With all of the facilities available to us today with the Internet, it's very hard to make a case that some crackpot (whether individual or a representative of an organization) poses any "serious evil".

In fact, you would have had a much better argument 70 years ago, when the only way for people to consume the news was through a few select vectors in a significantly smaller media universe -- theaters, radio, and newspapers. Today, you will have a hard time proving any sort of argument that suppressing skepticism about climate change is required because of some massive media conspiracy that is not letting the science through. The very fact that plenty of information exists to support a position of "OMGWTFBBQ!!11!!11!" with regard to taking action on climate change defeats any argument that other media need to be suppressed.

 

[falconeer]

3) Seeing as these are indeed quite unlikely -- Model the proposed law after one or more of the Veggie Libel Laws already on the books.

These laws vary significantly from state to state, but food libel laws typically allow a food manufacturer or processor to sue a person or group who makes disparaging comments about their food products. In some states these laws also establish different standards of proof than are used in traditional American libel lawsuits, including the practice of placing the burden of proof on the party being sued.
​

Replace "food manufacturer or processor" with "citizen"
Replace "disparaging comments about their food products" with "false statements regarding anthropogenic climate change"
Or some such.

Other than pointing out this precedent that leaves the Bill Of Rights intact, I would say that generally, the remedy for "bad free speech" is "more free speech" - I though it was a Molly Ivins gem, but to my embarrassment I can't find a citation.

This approach would be more likely to work, however, it would require redefining the meaning of libel to something extremely broad and vague. nwdiver raised this possibility, I gave my reasoning for why its a very bad idea on page 41 of this thread. Also, I don't think this redefinition would pass the supreme court if came to a challenge, because it really doesn't leave the bill of rights in tact (the letter yes, not the spirit).

- - - Updated - - -

Thanks for finding this, Robert. I had considered the example of yelling 'fire!' in a crowded movie theater, but without this, it just would have escalated the discussion further.

Yelling 'fire!' would meet the criteria of 'imminent'. But climate change, regardless of the long-term impact, does not (imo).

I agree with the general criteria of 'imminent', but I would like to point out that the famous example of yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater didn't really occur. In the famous Schenck v. US case, the party was sent to 10 years in prison for distributing leaflets urging citizens to dodge the draft (WW1). The judge claimed that this action was akin to shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater. Just an interesting historical fact.

 

[RichardC]

And on the flip sider, in the petro-state to the North, concerns that new anti-terrorism laws are likely to be used to persecute those speaking out against climate change (contrary to the federal government's wilful disregard for the problem, in its relentless promotion of tar sands development). See: "RCMP called ‘anti-petroleum’ critics a potential security threat"

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/...leum-critics-a-potential-security-threat.html See also:http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/desmog-canada/canadian-government-spying_b_4312548.html

All in the wake of the Canadian federal government's:

1. Muzzling of Environment Canada scientists - See: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-16861468, http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/0...r-governments-muzzling-of-federal-scientists/, and http://www.vancouverobserver.com/wo...ensive-about-muzzling-scientists-letter-shows
2. Use of Revenue Canada tax audits to intimidate environmental groups - See: http://www.thestar.com/opinion/edit...raises_spectre_of_intimidation_editorial.html, http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/7-e...s-face-canada-revenue-agency-audits-1.2526330, and http://www.vancouverobserver.com/ne...sked-why-cra-auditing-environmental-charities
3. The abolition of the well-regarded National Roundtable on the Environment and the Economy - See: http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/environment-panel-s-end-blamed-on-support-for-carbon-tax-1.1164935, and http://www.hilltimes.com/news/news/...l-‘radicals’-in-budget-cuts-say-critics/30278
4. Withdrawal from the Kyoto Protocol - See: http://www.thestar.com/opinion/edit..._of_destruction_finally_coming_to_an_end.html, http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/kyoto-withdrawal-shames-us-all/article4180876/, and http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/dec/13/canada-withdrawal-kyoto-protocol

 

[Robert.Boston]

Re @RichardC's post: To paraphrase Lord Acton's adage, "Money corrupts; oil money corrupts absolutely."

 

[wycolo]

Its always easier to read from a ready made script whether it be from Fox News Central, PBS Headquarters or the National Academy of Science. The rational basis re the Wyoming initiative seems to be that teachers should not simply regurgitate one side of science, but should make an honest effort to present all sides. Ok, no problem with that. But then of course the politicos jump salty on this with budget restrictions and other draconian fear mongering stipulations. Not so nice.

High school History for 12th grade should be US Constitutional Law. Ok, call it 'US Constitution'. But of course the only way to study this is to read Supreme Court decisions and the opinions of Wendell Holmes, Brandeis et al. Whole bunch of law text books that only a school library can afford. Students must spend time in Library doing work for this class. No single dumbed down textbook is even available that covers it all. Is this asking too much?
--

 

[RichardC]

Its always easier to read from a ready made script whether it be from Fox News Central, PBS Headquarters or the National Academy of Science. The rational basis re the Wyoming initiative seems to be that teachers should not simply regurgitate one side of science, but should make an honest effort to present all sides. ...
--

When it comes to the basics of climate science, there is only one side.

The area for intelligent debate relates to the actions to be taken in response to the science.