General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsShould Climate Change Deniers be punished?
Saw this article on Rasmussen report today- http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/environment_energy/little_support_for_punishing_global_warming_foes . Basically states
*snip*
Thursday, November 12, 2015
Global warming advocates are calling for the prosecution of groups who disagree with them, and New York State has taken it a step further by investigating Exxon Mobil for refusing to play ball with the popular scientific theory.
But 68% of Likely U.S. Voters oppose the government investigating and prosecuting scientists and others including major corporations who question global warming. A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 17% favor such prosecutions. Fifteen percent (15%) are undecided. (To see survey question wording, click here.)
Just over one-in-four Democrats (27%), however, favor prosecuting those who dont agree with global warming. Only 11% of Republicans and 12% of voters not affiliated with either major party agree.
After all, just 24% of all voters believe the scientific debate about global warming is over, although thats up from 20% in July of last year. Unchanged is the 63% who say that debate is not done yet. Thirteen percent (13%) are not sure.
Among voters who believe scientists have made up their minds about global warming, one-in-four (24%) favor prosecuting those who question that theory, but 64% are opposed.
*snip*
Personally, I think businesses and scientists who actively hamper the the established truth of climate change should be punished with civil AND criminal penalties. The theater is on fire, and they are blocking the exits and telling us everything is ok- they are basically responsible for the murder of the planet. How do others on here feel?
immoderate
(20,885 posts)Science is never absolute. However, fraud can be prosecuted.
--imm
SickOfTheOnePct
(7,290 posts)at the number of people on a progressive website that are in favor of punishing speech with which they disagree or find offensive.
Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)SickOfTheOnePct
(7,290 posts)You don't get to punish people because you don't like what they're saying, even when they're wrong.
It's called the First Amendment - you might want to read up on it.
Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)Opinions/misinformation do not trump facts. Especially when you are playing with the long term survival of mankind.
SickOfTheOnePct
(7,290 posts)"Lol"
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)was just meant to be a particularly effective message to the rest of the family, speech in fact.
The question here is what would be the benefits and costs to society? I'm pretty sure most prosecutions would be a grave distraction from what needs to be done. That said, prosecuting one or two of the most egregious crimes might send a particularly effective message that would be of net benefit.
SickOfTheOnePct
(7,290 posts)That if I choose to stand on the street corner, holding a sign saying "Climate change is a hoax!", I can't be prosecuted for it. Because it's not a crime to voice an opinion, even if that opinion is misinformed and ill-conceived.
Nor should it be.
What crimes are being committed, in your opinion?
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)because he could not be linked to egregious, specific damages. My thought was that IF we did prosecute anyone, it should be because of egregious damages inflicted. Remember, the word I used before? Of course, they would have to be provable.
Which brings me to the Kochs, for an example. They and others like them set out approximately 50 years ago to deceive America into believing that climate change was not real and did not pose any danger. Just about the same time, in fact, in 1965, that President Johnson sent formal notice to Congress that it needed to take action to halt global warming.
I support if possible prosecuting a careful selection of people like the Koch brothers who have committed extremely egregious crimes against humanity for decades and inflicted enormous harm on their country and the entire planet. Their victims number in the hundreds of millions already. The purpose would be to establish a precedent and standard that no one is above the law to discourage future crimes and bring perpetrators to justice far more quickly. Those merely complicit to a lesser degree in these crimes, like so many of the rest of us, would get to walk away.
Is it for the children? I bet it's for the children.
Because if it is, I fully support squelching any opinion not in lockstep with my own.
EX500rider
(10,881 posts)climber3986
(107 posts)Could you explain your opinion a little further in depth?
Say someone goes on facebook and says "I don't believe climate change is man made".
Should they be fined? If so, how much?
Should they go to prison? if So, how long?
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)Civil and criminal punishment for differences of opinions?
Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)GGJohn
(9,951 posts)you and I say it's the fate of mankind at stake, but others have a different opinion, which is their right under the 1st Amendment, and that should NEVER be criminalized.
Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)See how the 1st amendment stays in place then, let alone the rest of the constitution.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)To me, you are more dangerous than climate deniers.
Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)A reflection shown in most of your posts.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)GGJohn
(9,951 posts)Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)GGJohn
(9,951 posts)Donald Ian Rankin
(13,598 posts)In fact, to be fair to the person you're criticising, "pot, walrus, black".
pintobean
(18,101 posts)You are clueless.
linuxman
(2,337 posts)tblue37
(65,502 posts)Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)tblue37
(65,502 posts)Darb
(2,807 posts)But you are wrong about a lot of things. It's not opinion. The article is poorly written, IMO. I think many believe that deceiving the public about a lot of things should be punishable by law. It already is. You cannot deceive in advertising, is that against the 1st?
Nice to see you stray out of your NRA water-carry mode though.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)Being a climate denier is not advertising and is protected by the 1A.
I don't give a shit what many believe, it's what the Constitution and the law say that counts.
I hope you're not one of those that thinks speech that you don't agree with should be criminalized?
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)are held to certain standards about what they say/suggest by their profession.
So there is a case to be made for limiting speech when it comes to certain professions and industries.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)dumbcat
(2,120 posts)to express them. Period. Especially when it is about something important. Begone with them!
hunter
(38,337 posts)... but they are probably toxic.
Sad truth is, all of us are contributing to the planet's decline, some more than others, and generally in proportion to the amount of money we make.
This thing we call "economic productivity" is a direct measure of the damage we do to the earth's natural environment and the human spirit.
Fozzledick
(3,860 posts)Corporations who wage a multi-million dollar propaganda campaign to deceive the public about the reality of sudden catastrophic climate change aren't just expressing a difference of opinion, they're committing treason against humanity for short-term profit.
olddots
(10,237 posts)and have alot of free time .
BillZBubb
(10,650 posts)The polling question was extremely stupid. You cannot prosecute anyone for simply stating an opinion.
The real issue is that if a corporation's leadership knows global warming is true, yet publicly denies it, should the leaders of the corporation be prosecuted? To that I would say yes if that corporation makes money by denying what they know to be true. They are perpetrating fraud on shareholders.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)former9thward
(32,097 posts)LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)Many people pretend a different opinion implies hatred-- seems as though your response mirrors the OP in that respect. The irony of criticizing a fallacy with that same fallacy is bemusing.
No doubt... holding ourselves to a lower standard than we hold others allows a much more ethically simplistic existence. Human nature, I'd guess.
former9thward
(32,097 posts)Throd
(7,208 posts)world wide wally
(21,757 posts)By not reelecting them!
The2ndWheel
(7,947 posts)I'm as deep green as anyone (at least in thought), but no, the state should not be prosecuting climate change deniers. They are hardly responsible for the murder of the planet. They're not stopping anything from happening or not happening. If we do manage to figure out how to get limitless renewable energy, we'll probably carve up this planet faster than we have for the last few thousand years. It's clean and green, so nothing bad can happen. We say it is anyway, so it must be true. We created and defined the words. That's not subjective at all.
Mariana
(14,861 posts)Tobacco companies have been punished for lying about and covering up the dangers of tobacco use. If corporations have lied about and covered up evidence of climate change, they should be punished as well.
Shankapotomus
(4,840 posts)many would be in jail.
It's really the fault of Democrats anyway. Why would you even negotiate over any issue with Republicans?
Democrats and Republicans do not belong side-by-side in any nation's government.
We should really be two separate nations.
raouldukelives
(5,178 posts)Unless of course one considers the idea of someone being forced to clean up their own messes punishment. Then, yes.
Darb
(2,807 posts)Nuff said.
The smart ones know it.
DrDan
(20,411 posts)Throd
(7,208 posts)Iggo
(47,577 posts)ncjustice80
(948 posts)This is the same thing, if not worse.
All speech is not protected- when it causes egregious harm, like the climate denial industry, something should be done about it.
petronius
(26,606 posts)not grounds for civil or criminal punishment, nor is advocating bad policy (no matter how self-serving that advocacy may be)...