From The Washington Times and the “your friendly local California thought police” comes this travesty.
A landmark California bill gaining steam would make it illegal to engage in climate-change dissent, clearing the way for lawsuits against fossil-fuel companies, think-tanks and others that have “deceived or misled the public on the risks of climate change.”
The first-of-its-kind legislation — Senate Bill 1161, or the California Climate Science Truth and Accountability Act of 2016 — is scheduled for floor action Thursday after clearing Senate committees in April and May.
The measure would allow state and local prosecutors to pursue claims against climate-change skepticism as a violation of the state’s Unfair Competition Law [UCL], as well as extend the four-year statute of limitations for such claims retroactively to Jan. 1, 2021.
“This bill explicitly authorizes district attorneys and the Attorney General to pursue UCL claims alleging that a business or organization has directly or indirectly engaged in unfair competition with respect to scientific evidence regarding the existence, extent, or current or future impacts of anthropogenic induced climate change,” says the state Senate Rules Committee’s floor analysis.
While the measure enjoys broad support by a bevy of environmental groups, the bill has also been described as an effort to ban free speech on climate change as well as chill donations to free-market groups.
Stephen Frank, editor of the conservative California Political Review, called the bill a
“totalitarian statement by Democrats that the First Amendment is now dead.”
“Did you donate to the Pacific Legal Foundation? Do you support Americans for Prosperity? Are you a member of the California Republican Party, which has a platform approving of all forms of energy, including fossil fuel (oil)? Do you work for a gas station, an oil company, have your written a letter to the editor in favor of oil drilling?” asked Mr. Frank in a May 31 post.
“If so, you could find yourself with being charged in a court of law, thanks to SB 1161,” Mr. Frank said.
California Attorney General Kamala Harris belongs to a coalition of 17 state attorneys general that joined forces in March to pursue climate-change skeptics, starting with ExxonMobil.
The floor analysis cites as a rationale for the bill articles published last year by InsideClimate News and the Columbia Journalism School’s Energy and Environmental Reporting Project accusing ExxonMobil of hiding its research on climate change, which the company has denied.
“By extending the statute of limitations, California has the opportunity to hold these companies fully accountable for their actions,” said the analysis.
The bill declares that there is no legitimate disagreement on the causes and extent of climate change, stating that, “There is broad scientific consensus that anthropogenic global warming is occurring and changing the world’s climate patterns, and that the primary cause is the emission of greenhouse gases from the production and combustion of fossil fuels, such as coal, oil, and natural gas.”
Walter Olson of the website Overlawyered called the bill “extraordinary,” adding that “the target is clearly public-issue advocacy.”
“Combined with the plans laid by California Attorney General Kamala Harris — part of the alliance of AGs that has sought to investigate not only oil, gas, and coal companies, but private advocacy groups and university scientists who have played a role in what is characterized as ‘climate denial’— the bill would begin laying the legal groundwork for an astonishingly broad campaign of inquisition and, potentially, expropriation,” Mr. Olson said in a May 31 post.
====================================
This is mind blowing, they are suspending the statute of limitations with this language:
342.5.
(a) (1) Notwithstanding Section 17208 of the Business and Professions Code, an action pursuant to Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 17200) of Part 2 of Division 7 of the Business and Professions Code against a corporation, firm, partnership, joint stock company, association, or other organization of persons that has directly or indirectly engaged in unfair competition, as defined in Section 17200 of the Business and Professions Code, with respect to scientific evidence regarding the existence, extent, or current or future impacts of anthropogenic-induced climate change that would otherwise be barred as of January 1, 2017, solely because the statute of limitation has or had expired, is revived and, in that case, the action may be commenced within four years of January 1, 2017. Nothing in this subdivision shall be construed to alter the applicable limitation period of an action that is not time barred as of January 1, 2017.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“said the NRC during the Fukushima Daiichi accident.”
S-T let me clear this up. First, the US NRC does not regulate Japan. Second, it was not the NRC is was an anti-nuke political appointee to the as head NRC commissioner by Obama. His conduct was irresponsible and international fearmongering.
The policies concerning spent fuel storage of that commissioner, Obama, DOE, and the Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid have reject by Federal Courts with a strong rebuke that the president is not above the law.
I want to thank Jane Fonda for her generous contribution to closing the nuke plant I worked at in California. Those eventually led to moving to another state.
We are much happier because we move. California is no longer a good place to live and raise children.
However, if the first amendment can not stand up to this silliness, it would have been dead along time ago.
Let me see if I have this right.
Not only are they outlawing disagreement with the government, they are retroactively going to punish those who disagreed with the government even prior to the passage of this law?
That would violate an entirely different portion of the US Constitution.
Said Constitution having been written by “old, dead white guys.” Haven’t you heard? It’s a “living document” (and probably not even available online), so Our Dear Leader has declared it null and void. Just ask him, if you can catch him between golf tee-times. Besides, you didn’t build that…
The oil companies should all stop selling gas and oil for a week to start with.
The states surrounding CA need to shut down all power lines into that state.
Unfortunately, one of them is Oregon, which is offended that California has beaten them to it (or perhaps because they’ve trumped the climate book ban in their schools). The others are Nevada and Arizona.
Definitely. And why not all plastic products too.
Just add a boilerplate paragraph at the end of every climate related statement of fact and skepticism…….
In accordance with the laws of California – it is humans what dun it and CO2 is bad mkay.
The gravy train has long since extinguished it’s supply of traditional fuel. This is simply an effort to keep the gravy train rolling forward just a little bit further and a little bit longer before it runs out of steam.
Let us hope that the solar panels and wind turbines running the gravy train go the way of their siblings. And let us really hope that we are not the birds in this metaphor.
Evidence and Uncertainty versus Consensus?
Will California uphold the Rule of Law and the Scientific Method?
Will objective evidence count against the “consensus”?
Steve McIntyre finds that out of 102 model runs of 32 models from 1979 to 2015:
– based on the evidence submitted by Dr. John Christy in his Feb. 2nd, 2016 evidence to Congress.
Will California recognize the essential Uncertainty of Science? per Richard Feynman.
Well I’m confused.
What business is there in this great big world of our that gains an unfair advantage by disputing climate science?
davidmhoffer,
This is a clear admission that they’ve lost the scientific argument, no?
If they had any good, rational arguments supported by verifiable evidence showing that the rise in human emissions is the primary cause of global warming, they would be beating everyone over the head with that evidence 24/7/365.
But they have no credible evidence, and all empirical observations contradict their “carbon” scare. So instead of doing the stand-up thing and admitting they were wrong, they’re passing a law to punish anyone who doesn’t believe in their climate alarmism.
Now they’ll be looking to make examples of their political enemies. At taxpayer expense.
they’re passing a law to punish anyone who doesn’t believe in their climate alarmism.
My point is that I don’t think they did. Oh, they passed a law alright. But it doesn’t sound like it is actually applicable to anyone. For the law to be applicable, they must show that a company got an unfair advantage of their competition by disputing climate change. The law doesn’t penalize them for disputing climate change, it penalizes them for gaining an unfair advantage by disputing climate change. I can’t think of a company that this would apply to.
Let’s suppose that Exxon disputed climate change. Exactly how would that give them an unfair advantage over BP? Or Shell? What company is there that gets more business by disputing climate change while their competition doesn’t?
I think this is just for show. Sound and fury and all that. Can’t be practically applied to anyone.
the point of it is to make paper that can be cited.
that enhances the platform and intimidates.
it’s all about intimidation
if reason isn’t ‘conspiracy ideation’ then let it be criminal
criminalizing somebody renders them indefensible.
it’s like hanging the ‘baby raper’ jacket on your target.
defenders flee; the target is isolated and demonized and can be abused freely- not just ‘with impunity’, but with moral sanction!
it’s not about science and never was. there never was any debate at all about anything – it was simply the ‘corrida de toros’ with picadors to weaken and tire and distract the intended victims.
Exxon might arguably gain an “unfair advantage” over some competitor that squanders, err, “invests” money in green energy in order to appease the weather, err, climate gods.
Wind and Solar Farmers might claim Oil Co.s have an unfair advantage.
Er… perhaps someone with some understanding of the US legal system and politics would explain to us Europeans exactly what this bill is proposing?
As far as I can see it simply prohibits ‘unfair competition’ – which I take to mean illegally altering prices or some other breach of competition law. It is hard for me to see how that can be applied to ‘scientific evidence’ – which by its nature has to be discussed and examined.
The bill is proclaiming that climate science denial is de-facto unfair competition.
Right now, causing climate change is not illegal. But denying you are is! How bizarre, how bizarre!
If you say, ” it’s hot out today because it’s sunny, not because I flew here from Cannes”, I guess that’s pretty self incriminating!
I’m reeling from this news!? Can someone who is well versed rebut each line of that bill (talking about the enumerated list of Section 2)? Has someone already done this? How about any of the think-tanks (CEI, Heartland, ?)? This is bad. It’s worse than we thought (really, this time). Cloud-Cuckoo-Land.
Thank you,
JPS
PS – Sorry for posting the whole thing below… (if that’s bad form Mods, please delete my post)
SEC. 2. (a) The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:
(1) There is broad scientific consensus that anthropogenic global warming is occurring and changing the world’s climate patterns, and that the primary cause is the emission of greenhouse gases from the production and combustion of fossil fuels, such as coal, oil, and natural gas.
(2) The United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) states that the buildup of atmospheric greenhouse gases results in impacts that include the following:
(A) Changing temperature and precipitation patterns.
(B) Increases in ocean temperatures, sea level, and acidity.
(C) Melting of glaciers and sea ice.
(D) Changes in the frequency, intensity, and duration of extreme weather events.
(E) Shifts in ecosystem characteristics, such as the length of the growing season, timing of flower blooms, and migration of birds.
(F) Increased threats to human health.
(3) Impacts and damages from emissions of greenhouse gases that cause climate change have been occurring for many years and will be felt from decades to centuries after those emissions have occurred. The USEPA states, “[b]ecause many of the major greenhouse gases stay in the atmosphere for tens to hundreds of years after being released, their warming effects on the climate persist over a long time and can therefore affect both present and future generations.”
(4) Reports and documentation published by researchers, public interest nongovernmental organizations, and media in recent years show that some fossil fuel companies were aware by the late 1970s of scientific studies showing that carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel combustion pose significant risk of harmful global warming. The reports and documents also indicate that by the mid-1980s fossil fuel company scientists were confirming in internal documents intended for company management that emissions from fossil fuels were contributing significantly to climate change, and companies were factoring global warming into their own business investments.
(5) By 1988, the scientific evidence of climate change and the significant risks it poses was widely communicated to the public and was confirmed in congressional testimony by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). In that year, the United Nations formed the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the federal National Energy Policy Act of 1988 (House Resolution 5380, 100th Congress) was introduced in Congress in an effort to reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases. Because of the highly public dissemination of information, congressional discussion, and extensive media coverage of the robust scientific evidence of the risks of continued burning of fossil fuel products, major fossil fuel producers knew or should have known the risks of continued burning of their products by 1988.
(6) More than half of all industrial carbon emissions have been released since 1988, after the fossil fuel businesses knew of the harm their products might cause, and have substantially increased risks from climate change impacts to life, health, and property.
(7) Since at least 1989, published reports indicate that some of these same entities have put sustained and significant efforts and resources into creating public doubt on the science related to climate change caused by anthropogenic sources.
(8) Misleading and inaccurate information disseminated by organizations and representatives backed by fossil fuel companies, along with advertising and publicity casting doubt on scientific understanding of climate change, have led to confusion, disagreement, and unnecessary controversy over the causes of climate change and the effects of emissions of greenhouse gases. This type of misinformation, widely and broadly disseminated in the media, has long delayed public understanding of the risks of continuing to emit high levels of greenhouse gases, confused and polarized the public on the need to aggressively reduce emissions to limit risks from climate change, and increased damage to public safety, health, and property in California as well as nationally and globally.
(9) Scientific studies indicate that climate change impacts are occurring in California, causing significant damage to the economy, environment, and public health. In a 2013 report on climate change indicators, the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment found that California is already experiencing serious and measurable impacts from atmospheric warming in the state’s weather, water systems, high wildfire frequency and intensity, plant and animal species health, and human health and morbidity.
(10) Climate change has been tied by scientists to the severity and intensity of the historically unprecedented and costly drought that California has been experiencing since 2011 that has resulted in communities running out of water, agricultural water cutbacks, and unprecedented groundwater use that has caused subsidence and a loss of storage capacity in the state’s critical aquifers.
(11) An independent bipartisan report, published in 2014, indicates that, by 2050, California will be suffering economic losses of tens of billions of dollars due to climate change-related impacts and that heat-related deaths could be twice the number of current traffic-related deaths annually by the late 21st century.
(b) It is the intent of the Legislature to retroactively revive and extend the statute of limitation for actions that may or may not be barred by the applicable statute of limitation existing before January 1, 2017, and that seek redress for unfair competition practices committed by entities that have deceived, confused, or misled the public on the risks of climate change or financially supported activities that have deceived, confused, or misled the public on those risks.
(10) not climate change –
http://www.investors.com/california-drought-caused-by-environmental-activists/#ixzz3fdquBgFi
It also has not been worse than prior drought. The 1976? or so one was worse. Personal observation as I lived through both. BTW, rain this year is above average, yet the “drought monitor” page still shows dark red… “Drought” gets adjusted via the adjusted warmed temperatures in the Palmer Drought Index, so you can have above average rain and still call it a drought…
New headline-“California invokes EPA authority to stop free speech”
“New California bill would allow prosecution of climate-change skeptics”
The bill as linked by the article doesn’t seem to do anything like that. It just adds a section to the code of civil procedure, so it isn’t about prosecuting anyone. And as far as I can see, it doesn’t even create cause for new civil actions. It just shifts a bar of statute of limitations to allow existing causes of action to be pursued more than four years later.
Read the actual statute and see my comment below.
Nick, did you miss this quote from the article:
The Senate’s own analysis says the bill “explicitly authorizes” the AG to pursue skeptics based on “unfair competition.” It looks to me like they added a new category to the UCL and then shifted the statute of limitations to allow offenses that occurred before they were made illegal by this bill to be punished.
They are also turning the idea of “unfair competition” on its head. It will now be illegal to compete with the climate-change monopoly as it is defined by the state. Even in the realm of speech and ideas, skepticism is being make illegal. But what happens when an actual climate scientist makes a discovery that contradicts the current consensus? Will they be forbidden by the priests of Gaia, who currently run the state, to publish or announce their findings in California? Are we heading back to the middle ages? It seems that California progressives like the science the way it is. The last thing they want is for the science to “progress.”
No, I didn’t miss that quote. It explicitly authorizes the AG to pursue those claims. But it does not create a new class of claims. As the analysis also says, the UCL already:
“2) Authorizes the Attorney General, district attorneys, county
counsels and city attorneys to file lawsuits on behalf of
injured citizens.”
I don’t see any added effect here. But anyway, it isn’t about prosecuting skeptics, or anyone else. It’s about filing civil claims. And it isn’t about the realm of speech and ideas.
“It isn’t about the realm of speech and ideas”?
I gather you support this legislation, Nick?
Having read SB-1161 and the analysis on the California Legislative Information website, Nick Stokes’ characterization of the legislation is accurate and complete.
http://www.bishop-hill.net/storage/Nick_Stokes_Defense_scr.jpg
Unfortunately, the “Stokes Shift” already has an entry in wikipedia.
The “Hypocrit polka”
Nick. If as you say the intent of the new legislation is to “,,,just add a section to the code of civil procedure…” for the purpose of “…shifting a bar of statute of limitations…,” then why all the folderol (see the list provided by Jumbofoot, June 2, 2016 at 2:51 pm) about what the legislature finds and declares to be true? Anyone who doesn’t see the proposed legislature as an attempt to silence climate skepticism is blind in one eye and can’t see out the other. That includes you, Nick.
“why all the folderol”
I think it’s politics. Legislators are free to state a viewpoint too. Some will like it and vote for them, some not and won’t.
But the only thing this bill would mandate is the extension of a limitations period.
Yeah Nick. You’re definitely right that politicians are “free to state a viewpoint too.” Normally they do so in speeches, not as part of legislation. You may be right about the limited mandate of the law. And you are probably right that: “It’s politics.” If it is, it’s the same kind of politics as practiced by Joseph Stalin, Benito Mussolini, Adolf Hitler, Hugo Chavez, and their ilk. When, as we do now, we have a President who decides what laws he chooses to enforce and what laws he chooses to ignore, a tone is set that scares the he!! out of me. Lesser elected executives like the governor of California might follow his lead. Even if you’re right about the mandate of the law, the legislative wording preceding the mandate of the law gives an unscrupulous executive almost carte blanche to go after (i.e., prosecute) those whose views differ from his. The fix is simple, remove all references to “climate science” and limit the wording of the law to what you call its mandate–and extension of the statute of limitations.
A comment I submitted seems to have gone into limbo. If that comment surfaces, it’s pretty much a repeat of what follows. Nick, you are right: “Legislators are free to state a viewpoint too”. However, they mostly do it in speeches, not as text in legislation. You may be right that the law’s mandate is limited to and extension of the statute of limitations. But if that were the intent of the law, there would be no verbiage regarding climate science. It would then make as much sense to include verbiage regarding the price of tea in China as it does to include verbiage regarding climate science. And you’re probably right that “It’s politics.” The same kind of politics as practiced by Joseph Stalin, Benito Mussolini, Adolf Hitler, Hugo Chavez and their ilk. As I said before, in my opinion if you truly believe the proposed law is completely devoid of any attempt to silence climate skeptics, you’re blind in one eye and can’t see out the other. Your comment only confirms my opinion.
A comment I submitted seems to have gone into limbo. If that comment surfaces, it’s pretty much a repeat of what follows. Nick, you are right: “Legislators are free to state a viewpoint too”. However, they mostly do it in speeches, not as text in legislation. You may be right that the law’s mandate is limited to an extension of the statute of limitations. But if that were the intent of the law, there would be no verbiage regarding climate science. It would then make as much sense to include verbiage regarding the price of tea in China as it does to include verbiage regarding climate science. And you’re probably right that “It’s politics.” The same kind of politics as practiced by Joseph Stalin, Benito Mussolini, Adolf Hitler, Hugo Chavez and their ilk. I repeat, in my opinion if you truly believe the proposed law is completely devoid of any attempt to silence climate skeptics, you’re blind in one eye and can’t see out the other. Your response to my earlier comment only confirms my opinion.
Umm, per Wiki :
The 2016 United States elections will be held (for the most part) on Tuesday, November 8, 2016. During this presidential election year, the President of the United States and Vice President will be elected. In addition, elections will be held for all 435 voting-member seats in the United States House of Representatives (as well as all 6 non-voting delegate seats) and 34 of the 100 seats in the United States Senate.
They are all shaking in their boots 🙂
Gotta love it.
If this goes thru WUWT could be closed down… be extremely wary
“The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution ….”
— U.S. Constitution, Article VI, clause 3
“I, … , do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”
It is time to wake up Senators and Representatives, there seem to be domestic enemies to the Constitution of the United States.
You are correct about the requirement to affirm. The oath which you present is not in the Constitution, however, this shorter one is included in Article II: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
{It is time to wake up Senators and Representatives, there seem to be domestic enemies to the Constitution of the United States.}
I would hate to think you are just now realizing this S/F Seems to me the constitution has been misused and abused ever since the thing was ratified–now it is totally ignore–as a recent president said–“just a GD piece of paper”
I hate to admit that I´m just now starting to realize how bad it has become, I used to think so great of United States.
(I´m not a US citizen, so I might have an excuse).
So if this gets passed, will Religions be on the hook because they “deceived or misled the public on the risks of ….” going to hell? We have no scientific evidence God exists.
Jerry Brown strikes again. If this bill gets passed it won’t make it past the first trial without either being declared unconstitutional or going all the way to the Supreme Court . California is also the state that calls illegal aliens “Citizens of California”. Brown truly believes he can do anything he wants in California and get away with it.
Plants thrive with more CO2. People in temperate, subarctic and arctic zones want warmer winters. Warming in the tropics post 1950 has been minuscule. Who is against C02 fertilization, and human thriving in a modestly warmer world?
Well I hope they pass it. Then we can all start donating generous sums of money to Mr. Watts’ legal defense fund.
OK, maybe not. I wouldn’t wish that drawn out torture on anyone like Anthony.
“Deceived or misled”
Makes perfectly clear that those who know better should not lie to their investors or the public.
It is time to wake up, wise up, link up, take a stand together and speak up! Geoengineering Is The Primary Cause Of Global Climate Change Not CO2 http://stateofthenation2012.com/?p=27876
Mods: Doreen’s comment and link to chemtrails should be removed.
I think those commenting here should read the text of the bill first. First the bill’s purpose is to ostensibly extend the statute of limitations by 4 years from 2017 giving the State AG or District Attorney until Jan 1, 2021 to pursue action that dates back as far as 2013. (The current limitation is 4 years)
On the surface, this appears rather innocuous. However, in my opinion (and I’m CDN not USA) what is FAR MORE FREIGHTENING are the statements that precede this extension. It starts “The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:”. What follows is 17 points (major and minor) of the CAGW manifesto and a number of them are not defensible by even the most liberal science.
I think that if the bill passes, the CAGW manifesto then becomes law and therefore it does not need to be proven. It also states that this was known to be true in 1989, so anyone disagreeing with the manifesto since 1989 is now breaking the law and subject to prosecution.
“I think those commenting here should read the text of the bill first.”
Yes.
“On the surface, this appears rather innocuous.”
Yes.
“CAGW manifesto then becomes law”
They seek to state the view of the legislature. That view doesn’t become law unless it is made binding on someone. This Bill doesn’t do that.
Law not binding? Nice one there… Try it on your next traffic ticket…
“Try it on your next traffic ticket”
A traffic ticket does not charge me with contravening the view of the legislature. It charges me with contravening specific provisions of the criminal law. This Bill makes no such provisions.
@Nick;
This bill does in fact make those views law. How thick can one individual be? Did someone hit you in the head with a brick recently???
From jumbofoot’s list above:
Item 2 establishes as fact, not subject to dispute, the list of harms.
Item 5 establishes as fact, not subject to dispute, that the the burning of fossil fuels causes the harms in (2) and the companies should have known that.
Items 7 and 8 establishes as fact, not subject to dispute, that there is an ongoing deliberate campaign to mislead the public.
Items 9, 10, and 11 establish as fact, not subject to dispute, certain harms already experienced by California and amazingly the harms that will be suffered in the future, not might.
Under this bill plaintiffs merely file the lawsuit and immediately collect the money, because all the elements you would normally need to establish as fact at trial have been preempted by the law.
” so anyone disagreeing with the manifesto since 1989 is now breaking the law and subject to prosecution”
California’s Brown Shirts (or is that Greenie Shirts) are more than welcome to come try and get me.
Fun? You assume the court will be rational.
As opposed to the Salem witch trials.
Upon second thought. This is actually a good thing is in not?
“This bill explicitly authorizes district attorneys and the Attorney General to pursue UCL claims alleging that a business or organization has directly or indirectly engaged in unfair competition with respect to scientific evidence regarding the existence, extent, or current or future impacts of anthropogenic induced climate change,”
Isn’t this exactly what warmists are doing? A paper say “could” or “might”, but the media report it as “will” or “is”.
I don’t think so as the bill defines the “science”
It sounds a bit like the Indiana Pi Bill of 1897.
Many bogus USEPA regulations have come out of the “CaliforniaDreamin’EPA”.
“If the public can’t pronounce it, it must be bad and banned.”
(There was an Earth Day where people actually signed a petition to ban Di-hydrogen Monoxide!)
Now, showing as much sense, California wants to regulate opinions/conclusions at the expense of Freedom of Speech.
One of the beauties of Freedom of Speech is, if you spout garbage, nobody has to listen or pay attention to you.
Freedom of Speech is only a threat to the spouters who fear a contrary opinion being heard.
Here in the US, “Government” was formed as a means to defend Freedom of Speech (among others), not as a tool to suppress it.
When I was a student in the physics department of a large southern school (back in the 1985-86 time frame) we sat outside the liberal arts college with a petition to ban dihydrogen monoxide with a list of whereas’s that listed its lethal statistics. EVERY liberal arts major signed the petition, yet not one of the students at the engineering school or school of sciences signed. Mostly they just laughed. This was before all the social justice warrior excrement hit the campuses, I can’t imagine what the signers would be like now – there might be a riot over the injustice of it all.
This *is* an act of desperation on the part of the Alarmists. And the temperatures keep dropping.