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.
What would Stalin have done? Same modus operandi.
What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. This can work both ways. If you are a CA based anthroglowarmie organization or government agency, you could be sued under this act, up to 2021, requiring you to defend against such proper scientific methods such as sign-to-noise ratio, background climate at an end interglacial, and you might even be faced with defending the seriously tortured surface datasets.
All you legal eagles out there, take note!
In fact, as I see it, this would be easy to defend against with the same tacks I just mentioned. Expensive? Probably. But definitely technically doable. I know, I’ve been doing it for a while now….
This completely unconstitutional law is extremely chilling and shows how close Americans are to completely losing their inalienable rights.
This law would ultimately jeopardize all freedoms of: thought, ideas, expression, assembly, petition, press, religion, debate and skepticism as deemed “counter” to arbitrary Statist approved dogma….
Many tyrannical governments throughout history have tried desperately to suppress freedom of speech to prevent any opposition to their tyrannical agendas… These tyrannical governments didn’t end well..
The essence of science and an individual’s inalienable rights to: life (including an individuals’ thoughts, ideas and beliefs that define their lives), liberty (freedom from government oppression), and property (which included intellectual property) is the ability to freely and openly debate one’s ideas. Once governments fail to protect and defend these rights and actively seek to destroy them, citizens become slaves to the state.
The Constitution was written to prevent the government from ever passing laws like this anti-freedom of speech California law, but, alas…
Leftists have this crazy notion that the government has the power and obligation to prevent people from being offended… It doesn’t. To the contrary, the US is one of the few countries in the world that still protects and defends “hate” speech (Brandenburg v. Ohio, 1969).
This insane “Social Justice Warrior” movement is essentially a means to remove the right of freedom of speech and to empower the government to decide what thoughts and ideas are protected and which are criminally actionable…
If Hillary is elected, she’ll have at least 3 SCOTUS appointments that will actively defend laws like this anti-free-speech California law, under the false pretense of “saving the world”– hey, who can be against “saving the world”???
That alone should give anyone pause prior to November..
Once this is passed, the State of California should instruct all internet service providers that they must block website domains that allow dissenting views on climate.
This is certainly unconstitutional, in the sense that is inconstant with the actual wording of the first amendment. We must remember however that we are two justices away from a SCOTUS that believes that the court is free to effectively re-write the Constitution with a 5-4 majority.
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.
D’ye know, interpreted correctly, that means that just about every renewable energy in California could find itself in the dock?
Since there is no scientific evidence for AGW that stacks up,any company that uses AGW as an excuse to make profits it would not have otherwise done, seems to me to be liable for prosecution.
The “gut and amend” process mentioned by the Washington Times article in Mr. Wickersham’s post above is an amazing theory of science, political science, that is. It is where proposed legislation that has met all of the mandated deadlines of the legislative process is amended to remove all of the original language and replace it with language from another bill that has not met the mandated deadlines. Then the amended bill is passed with great fanfare. (And now you know the relationship between making sausage and making laws.)
Mr. Riley is correct that the Constitution means whatever a majority of the Justices say it means. As I mentioned in a post in another thread, the Legislature could fix this, but they are cowards and will not do it. As a result, we are no longer a Republic ruled by laws, but a Democracy ruled by the tyranny of the majority.
I think they’re just sticking to the script. The scrpt needed the Energy Policy 1988 Bill to be passed – it wasn’t.
They don’t seem very adaptible – just trying to steam-roll ahead.
The measure was introduced amid a national push by Democrats and activist groups to use the legal system to prosecute climate change fraud, prompting a backlash from skeptics who have denounced the campaign as an assault on free speech. A coalition of 17 state attorneys general, including California Attorney General Kamala Harris, joined forces to pursue climate change skeptics. Four prosecutors have begun investigations into Exxon Mobil for climate change fraud.
Introduced by state Sen. Ben Allen, Santa Monica Democrat, S.B. 1161 had strong support from environmental groups, led by the Union of Concerned Scientists. The measure provided a four-year window in the statute of limitations on violations of the state’s Unfair Competition Law, allowing legal action to be brought until January 1 on charges of climate change fraud extending back indefinitely.
‘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,’ said the state Senate Rules Committee’s floor analysis of the bill.
The bill died Thursday after the California Senate failed to take it up before the deadline.
The measure was introduced amid a national push by Democrats and activist groups to use the legal system to prosecute climate change fr aud, prompting a backlash from skeptics who have denounced the campaign as an assault on free speech. A coalition of 17 state attorneys general, including California Attorney General Kamala Harris, joined forces to pursue climate change skeptics. Four prosecutors have begun investigations into Exxon Mobil for climate change fr aud.
Introduced by state Sen. Ben Allen, Santa Monica Democrat, S.B. 1161 had strong support from environmental groups, led by the Union of Concerned Scientists. The measure provided a four-year window in the statute of limitations on violations of the state’s Unfair Competition Law, allowing legal action to be brought until January 1 on charges of climate change fr aud extending back indefinitely.
‘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,’ said the state Senate Rules Committee’s floor analysis of the bill.
The bill died on Thursday after the California Senate failed to take it up before the deadline.
[Dupe. .mod]
More info on the authors:
Introduced by Senator Allen
(Coauthors: Senators Jackson and Leno)
Allen http://sd26.senate.ca.gov/
Jackson http://sd19.senate.ca.gov/
Leno http://sd11.senate.ca.gov/
Welcome to politics in the Republic of California
Post was duplicated because it disappeared for a while after submission.
With all your troubles with WordPress, I sometimes have to guess what is happening.
I am “confused.” Does the bill outlaw me from (1) publicly stating that there is no climate change – Speech Police or (2) stating and thinking that there is no climate change – Thought Police?
Does the bill apply only when I am physically present within the state of California? Or, does the bill make me subject to arrest for communicating my denial of man made climate change into the state of California while I am in, say, Kansas?
In other words, LIBERALS ARE NUTS!
So, we just forget the “Land of the free” bit? Have rewrite, think of something else?
Panic over?
http://www.thegwpf.com/california-senate-sidelines-bill-to-prosecute-climate-sceptics/
I notice from the Terms of Service for WordPress the following:
“Except to the extent applicable law, if any, provides otherwise, this Agreement, any access to or use of our Services will be governed by the laws of the state of California, U.S.A., excluding its conflict of law provisions, and the proper venue for any disputes arising out of or relating to any of the same will be the state and federal courts located in San Francisco County, California. ”
Does this apparent incorporation in the State of California mean that if WordPress or its parent company were to continue to do business with sites of a sceptic nature , such as WUWT, they would be subject to prosecution , and that they would be advised by their lawyers to restrict business solely to warmist sites ?
They of course know that they were trying to infringe 1st amendment. And they didn’t care the least : this is the most disturbing thing in this mess
On the other hand, it seems that even in California this piece of **** could not get enough traction to turn into effective law. That’s a good point
I’m surprised this article wasn’t a “sticky” on this site.
I understand that it would be hazardous to sell oil-based products in California and so I recommend that “big oil” grows a pair and stop selling in California.
When California complains, they might say that this step is costing lie. But under that law, should would clearly not allowed as anyone knows that it is the use of fossil fuels is costing live so not selling fossil fuel products would be completely legal. Complaining about it would not.
Remember years and years ago when they told us that “the big one” could hit at any moment, and California could break-off and slide into the Pacific Ocean? Well… I’m still waiting.
Aside from the obvious Constitutional issues, another major issue is that it sets up politicians and political appointees as “peer reviewers” of the science used in a very politically charged debate.
Ah, The Thought Police. We’ve been expecting you…. ; (
This law is ridiculous, Crime of lèse-majesté against the state HERE WE COME.
California Constitution 1849..
Sec. 9. Every citizen may freely speak, write, and publish his sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that right; and no law shall be passed to restrain or abridge the liberty of speech or of the press. In all criminal prosecutions on indictments for libels, the truth may be given in evidence to the jury; and if it shall appear to the jury that the matter charged as libelous is true, and was published with good motives and for justifiable ends, the party shall be acquitted; and the jury shall have the right to determine the law and the fact.
Challenge this Statute in the courts…
CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION – CONS
ARTICLE I DECLARATION OF RIGHTS [SECTION 1 – SEC. 31] ( Article 1 adopted 1879. )
SEC. 2.
(a) Every person may freely speak, write and publish his or her sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of this right. A law may not restrain or abridge liberty of speech or press.
Well, being facetious and taking the proverbial mickey out of you Americans from afar, I would simply say this: your founding fathers designed the First Amendment to ensure that you didn’t have good reason to take advantage of the Right to Bear Arms and shoot each other, except under the circumstances which that Amendment within the Constitution was suitably designed for.
Now, your green zealots are giving all you gun-toting conservatives a perfect excuse to get your guns out and, instead of dissenting verbally about climate change, simply killing the loud mouthed eco-fascists who are preventing you from so doing.
‘The road to hell is paved with good intentions’.
‘Never pass legislation without considering carefully the unintended consequences of your actions’.
1161 dead for now. I think there are 2 things we can all count on now, whatever our beliefs:
1. Another bill like it will arise – from somewhere in the US. Perhaps even a re-iteration of 1161 in CA.
2. If the new bill is passed – in whatever state – it will be challenged – all the way to SCOTUS.
When those 2 things happen, it will be very interesting to all of us to watch how it plays out.
On the legal front, it may be worth noting 2 big wins(by teens, surprisingly) recently, in Washington State and Massachusetts:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/washingtonk-kids-climate-lawsuit_us_5723f60ae4b01a5ebde5be52?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/massachusetts-teens-climate-change_us_573f1bf5e4b045cc9a70b23c?