3 ms·
This appears to have big stakes for free speech in general, not just climate science. We need people to be allowed to disagree - yes, even in the face of data.
by EgregiousCube 3y ago
This appears to have big stakes for free speech in general, not just climate science. We need people to be allowed to disagree - yes, even in the face of data.
- tovej 3y agoHmm, so no legal responsibilities for companies spreading harmful propaganda?
- EgregiousCube 3y agoYes, it needs to be legal to be wrong, and it needs to be legal to lie when not under oath.
- trehalose 3y agoI don't want advertisers and shopkeepers lying to me about their products. I don't care if they're not under oath. I'd rather they not be allowed to scam me into buying their worthless goods.
- gary_0 3y agoBeyond that, if "free speech" trumps proof of harm or criminal intent, then all forms of fraud would be legal. Fortunately, the legal system is not that stupid.
- gary_0 3y agoVirtually every country on Earth has laws that apply when you make false accusations that cause real-world harm, and there is a long history of such trials in the US, so I fail to see how this has "big stakes for free speech".
- keithalewis 3y agoYou are making an assumption as big as the Ozone Hole. Er, I mean as big as it used to be. /s