Originally posted by shavixmirI don't know what "laster" means (I assume you don't mean "A workman whose business it is to shape boots or shoes, or place leather smoothly, on lasts; a tool for stretching leather on a last." ) but libel is a lie about another person, which is very different from a lie about scientific facts. Anyway, while libel is a tort, redressable in civil court, it has not been a crime in the US in more than two centuries.
So libel and laster are okay with you too?
21 Sep 15
Originally posted by sh76Oh, poops!
I don't know what "laster" means (I assume you don't mean "A workman whose business it is to shape boots or shoes, or place leather smoothly, on lasts; a tool for stretching leather on a last." ) but libel is a lie about another person, which is very different from a lie about scientific facts. Anyway, while libel is a tort, redressable in civil court, it has not been a crime in the US in more than two centuries.
Yeah, that's Dutch for slander...
Haha.
It's been a long day!
21 Sep 15
Originally posted by shavixmirYou read it, so it must be true Shav.
Didn't I read somewhere that the 'there's no global warming' group was financed by big money from coal companies?
Sounds like criminal behaviour to me.
Paying to forge results to influence policy?
Nice going.
21 Sep 15
Originally posted by whodeyOf course, the scientists made no call to "prosecute" anybody. The full letter is here: http://www.iges.org/letter/LetterPresidentAG.pdf
http://dailycaller.com/2015/09/17/scientists-ask-obama-to-prosecute-global-warming-skeptics/#ixzz3mDx28iSS
Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics
The science on global warming is settled, so settled that 20 climate scientists are asking President Barack Obama to prosecute people who disagree with them on the science behind man-made ...[text shortened]... fossil fuels, have engaged in a misinformation campaign to confuse the public on global warming.
What they endorsed was a civil RICO "investigation of corporations
and other organizations that have knowingly deceived the American people abo
ut the risks of climate change, as a means to forestall America’s response to
climate change".
It would be essentially an investigation of alleged conspiracy to commit fraud similar to the one of the tobacco industry for attempting to deceive about the dangers of smoking.
I'm not sure I support the idea, but it is important to actually get the details of the idea from someplace besides a Daily Caller headline (though if one reads the article the info contradicting the headline is there).
Originally posted by sh76Are you saying that commercial fraud should be protected free speech?
===in any society, presenting falsehoods as truths and profiting from this is fraud. it is and should be illegal.===
Not in a society that values freedom of speech.
===What is the difference between a scientists who cooks his findings and an accountant who cooks his books?===
http://classroom.synonym.com/difference-between-political-speech-commercial-speech-9131.html
Was US v. Phillip Morris Inc. wrongly decided? http://www.dwlr.com/blog/2011-05-12/rico-convictions-major-tobacco-companies-affirmed
21 Sep 15
Originally posted by no1marauderIs stating that global warming is not man made (even) for the purpose of trying to drive government policy a commercial statement?
Are you saying that commercial fraud should be protected free speech?
Was US v. Phillip Morris Inc. wrongly decided? http://www.dwlr.com/blog/2011-05-12/rico-convictions-major-tobacco-companies-affirmed
Originally posted by no1marauderOh, it was civil RICO? I didn't catch that. That's a horse of a different color.
Of course, the scientists made no call to "prosecute" anybody. The full letter is here: http://www.iges.org/letter/LetterPresidentAG.pdf
What they endorsed was a [b]civil RICO "investigation of corporations
and other organizations that have knowingly deceived the American people abo
ut the risks of climate change, as a means to forestall Americ ...[text shortened]... ler[/i] headline (though if one reads the article the info contradicting the headline is there).[/b]
21 Sep 15
Originally posted by sh76The exchange was:
Is stating that global warming is not man made (even) for the purpose of trying to drive government policy a commercial statement?
z: in any society, presenting falsehoods as truths and profiting from this is fraud. it is and should be illegal.===
sh76: Not in a society that values freedom of speech.
Your answer seems to imply that false commercial speech ("profiting from it" as z said) is protected by freedom of speech principles. Is that your claim?
If RJHinds makes such a statement, of course not. If Exxon does, yes it is.
21 Sep 15
Originally posted by sh76I apologize for invoking Godwin, but we don't as a society tolerate Holocaust denial. Why should we tolerate climate change denial when the consequences for all of society will be just as dire?
In a free society, the way to win a public debate is to present better arguments, not to have the other guy arrested.
Originally posted by kmax87There is no climate change denial, numbnuts. There are global warming skeptics who disagree with the cause and the remedy.
I apologize for invoking Godwin, but we don't as a society tolerate Holocaust denial. Why should we tolerate climate change denial when the consequences for all of society will be just as dire?
The Near Genius 😏
21 Sep 15
Originally posted by sh76Thankfully, the signatories on that document are scientists, not politicians.
I'd say there's a 99.9% chance that the Earth is warming and probably a 90% chance that human activities have had a substantial impact.
But the idea of prosecuting people for making even false political statements is reprehensible.
Thankfully, the signatories on that document are scientists, not politicians.
Sounds like you trust a politician in a way you would not trust a scientist.
22 Sep 15
Originally posted by finneganNot in most contexts, but at least in the context of knowing that political speech cannot be prosecuted, yes.
Thankfully, the signatories on that document are scientists, not politicians.
Sounds like you trust a politician in a way you would not trust a scientist.
22 Sep 15
Originally posted by no1marauder"Illegal" implies in a criminal context.
The exchange was:
z: in any society, presenting falsehoods as truths and profiting from this is fraud. it is and should be illegal.===
sh76: Not in a society that values freedom of speech.
Your answer seems to imply that false commercial speech ("profiting from it" as z said) is protected by freedom of speech principles. Is that your claim?
If RJHinds makes such a statement, of course not. If Exxon does, yes it is.
Anyway, "profiting" by taking your case to the court of public opinion in order to influence government action is a bit attenuated to call it commercial speech. If I (assume I'm very rich and powerful) tell everyone that their taxes are higher than they are so that they'll vote for people who will lower taxes for the purpose of my benefiting from lower taxation, that's not really commercial speech.