Should Climate Change Deniers be punished?

[ncjustice80]

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 don’t 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 that’s 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]

1. Bad idea. Academic freedom takes precedence.

Science is never absolute. However, fraud can be prosecuted.

--imm

[SickOfTheOnePct]

2. I never cease to be amazed

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]

4. You just dont get it do you.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

7. Yeah, I totally get it

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]

8. Lol, its not first amendment. It's survival of the species. You don't get it in the slightest.

Opinions/misinformation do not trump facts. Especially when you are playing with the long term survival of mankind.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

26. To quote you

"Lol"

[Hortensis]

37. Illegal actions are prosecutable, even if shooting one's spouse

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]

42. And I'm 100% positive

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]

46. Agree, but that person would not be prosecutable anyway

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.

[ryan_cats]

43. Is

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]

52. lol...

[climber3986]

51. No I dont get it

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]

3. This is stupid beyond reason.

Civil and criminal punishment for differences of opinions?

[Katashi_itto]

6. It's not opinion. Its the fate of mankind at stake.

[GGJohn]

10. Yes, it is a difference of opinions,

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]

12. Lol. Remember that when the rise accelerates and 500 million get displaced.

See how the 1st amendment stays in place then, let alone the rest of the constitution.

[GGJohn]

14. So you want to discard the Constitution because others have opinions different than ours?

To me, you are more dangerous than climate deniers.

[Katashi_itto]

17. Your clueless.

A reflection shown in most of your posts.

[GGJohn]

18. And now the personal insults.

[Katashi_itto]

20. I was being nice. You can't help the fact your thinking is...well two dimensional.

[GGJohn]

23. And you can't help the fact that you don't have a clue about me and what my thinking is. eom.

[Katashi_itto]

30. You think? If you say so.

[GGJohn]

36. Oh, I do say so and I stand behind my words. eom.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

49. Pot, kettle, black.

In fact, to be fair to the person you're criticising, "pot, walrus, black".

[pintobean]

28. His clueless what?

You're clueless.
You are clueless.

[linuxman]

32. His clueless what?

[tblue37]

19. Where will the other 493 billion come from? (World population = 7 billion.). nt

[Katashi_itto]

21. It's late and I had come from Kendo practice. Thanks I fixed it.

[tblue37]

22. I figured it was a typo. nt

[Darb]

33. Figures you would call it opinion.

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]

35. Awww, I was wondering when you would show up to "correct" me.

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]

40. Ah, but the FDA prohibits claims made about food/supplements. Doctor/lawyers

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]

41. But not in this case. eom.

[dumbcat]

50. People with wrong opinions should not be allowed

to express them. Period. Especially when it is about something important. Begone with them!

[hunter]

5. I suppose it might be nice to feed them to the polar bears...

... 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]

9. I'd like to see them relocated to the third of New Orleans that's still in ruins.

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]

11. yes I need a job

and have alot of free time .

[BillZBubb]

13. Rasmussen is a right wing outfit.

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]

16. +1. Corporations are not allowed to lie nt

[former9thward]

15. You really hate the Constitution.

[LanternWaste]

38. The irony of criticizing a fallacy with that same fallacy is bemusing.

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]

53. It was a direct attack on the 1st amendment.

[Throd]

45. Not sure if they hate it, but they don't understand it.

[world wide wally]

24. YES!

By not reelecting them!

[The2ndWheel]

25. No

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]

27. There is precedent.

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]

29. If only ignorance were a crime

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]

31. No, they should just fix it.

Unless of course one considers the idea of someone being forced to clean up their own messes punishment. Then, yes.

[Darb]

34. When things get bad enough, we should eat them.

Nuff said.

[Iggo]

48. We will.

The smart ones know it.

[DrDan]

39. punished for breaking which law? This is a dangerous idea IMO - it would work both ways, you know.

[Throd]

44. Your idea is horrible and authoritarian.

[Iggo]

47. By whom and for what?

[ncjustice80]

54. Tobacco companies lied for decades, and suffered severe penalties as a result.

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]

55. No. Believing, or pretending to believe, in highly unlikely or irrational positions is

not grounds for civil or criminal punishment, nor is advocating bad policy (no matter how self-serving that advocacy may be)...