To facetiously paraphrase a line that I often hear from global warming deniers: Don't be offended, I'm just asking questions.
Itâs conventional wisdom that the right to free speech does not permit you to shout âfire!â in a crowded theater â but does that mean you have the right to claim there is no fire when a theater is ablaze?
This is the question posed by the existential crisis of man-made global warming, and it is one that doesn't lend itself to an easy answer. Certainly it can be acknowledged that man-made global warming has forced us to re-examine other verities that once underpinned the modern liberal political order. Laissez-faire economic theory, which holds that state regulation of the economy is an unequivocal social ill, doesnât stand up when you consider that insufficient environmental regulations got us into this mess and stronger ones will be necessary to mitigate the damage. A similar observation could be made about the consumerist ethos that drives free market economic models: A status quo of constant expansion may be economically healthy within the paradigm of capitalist markets, but it is devastatingly unsustainable when it comes to the fitness of our planet.
These are more obvious conclusions, and more comfortable ones too, since anyone who doesnât view free market economic theory as a dogma akin to a secular religion (that is, anyone who hasnât drunk the right-wing Kool-aid) admits that we can increase state regulations over the economy without fundamentally eroding human freedom. Yet the same cannot be said thinking that civil or even criminal penalties should be imposed on the men and women who abuse free speech to insist that the Earth is not heading toward catastrophe when the scientific evidence conclusively proves otherwise.
âTempting though the idea is, I would not favor modifying Western legal systems to permit the imposition of financial liability on any individual or organization that is found to have âspread incorrect information about man-made climate change,ââ Laurence Tribe, an author and constitutional law professor at Harvard, told Salon by email. âThe key to my reason for resisting such a modification is in the word âfound.â If I ask myself: Whom would I trust to make an authoritative âfindingâ about which information about a topic as complex as man-made climate change is âincorrect,â I must answer: Nobody. Certainly not any public official or governmental agency or any government-designated private group. I trust the process of open uncensored dialogue among experts and lay persons to generate truthful understandings over time, especially if we enact and enforce requirements of transparency and disclosure about who is funding which assertions. But I would be deeply concerned about anything resembling the identification and empowerment of a Commissar of Truth.â
DWright_5 on December 10th, 2018 at 13:29 UTC »
I’m not a lawyer, but it might not be possible to sue someone when the world is dead.
Vaeon on December 10th, 2018 at 11:29 UTC »
Did any of the medical professionals who took money from the tobacco industry in exchange for saying tobacco was harmless go to prison? No, they didn't.
Did anyone from Monsanto go to prison for lying about the health effects of Agent Orange? No, they didn't.
Same thing will happen here.
PaidToBeRedditing on December 10th, 2018 at 11:03 UTC »
Depends how reliant on corporations the worlds population is when it comes time to assign liability. Corporations get away with so much shit now because those in 'power' know that we need them. They own the world, and they think they can treat it how they like.