4 ms·

Of course, hypocrisy is no surprise: they think that they know best, and that the ends justify the means. It "doesn't deserve First Amendment protection" if th

Of course, hypocrisy is no surprise: they think that they know best, and that the ends justify the means. It "doesn't deserve First Amendment protection" if they think it's incorrect, or if they think it won't help them achieve their policy goals. It's not censorship if it's in line with their cause. This is what happens when policy is made without principle, and down this path lies authoritarianism and suffering. Might-makes-right doesn't end well.

Xylakant 10y ago
The issue at hand is not that one side thinks it's incorrect and because of that it doesn't deserve first amendment protection. The issue at hand is that allegedly - not proven yet, but there are strong indicators - Exxon mobiles scientists were aware of the dangers and despite their knowledge, Exxon mobile lobbied and lied about the issue. It's at least questionable if lying by a corporation to sell products and influence policy should be protected as free speech. Now, you could use a different line of lobbying: We're aware that using non-renewable carbon based energy sources are an issue, but they're the best we have and the benefits outweigh the costs. This wouldn't be lying despite better knowledge and certainly be protected. That would also be about policy decisions (what do we want and which risks do we accept) which is a valid target for lobbyism.