“The Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits in establishing that the Government has used its power to silence the opposition. Opposition to COVID-19 vaccines; opposition to COVID-19 masking and lockdowns; opposition to the lab-leak theory of COVID-19; opposition to the validity of the 2020 election; opposition to President Biden’…
“The Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits in establishing that the Government has used its power to silence the opposition. Opposition to COVID-19 vaccines; opposition to COVID-19 masking and lockdowns; opposition to the lab-leak theory of COVID-19; opposition to the validity of the 2020 election; opposition to President Biden’s policies; statements that the Hunter Biden laptop story was true; and opposition to policies of the government officials in power. All were suppressed.”
Noticeably missing from this list is the current toxicity over climate; through the leverage of funding, lawfare, and a friendly (but clueless) media, scientists who question the government’s drive to convince us all that climate catastrophe is just around the corner are shunned, silenced, or, at the worst, suspended. The Murthy v. Missouri case is specifically about speech, but indirectly touches on the power of the “bully pulpit” of the White House and its minions. Those who treasure the climate change scam should be reminded daily about the privilege that the First Amendment protects.
Many people argue that the Bill of Rights “grants” certain rights. It does not. Robert Jackson argued that “the very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.” Logically, then, the outcome of an election should not grant the winner the right to suppress those privileges.
I don't know if there was any government attempt to suppress climate skepticism on social media, which is the issue for this case.
Given that the government funds a lot of research it's hard to see how you can avoid selective funding of research that they think is going in the right direction. That's one of the disadvantages of government funding. University departments will naturally prefer to hire people whose research can get funded, which means people who agree with the kind of research the government wants to fund. I saw something a while back by Judith Curry saying that she was no longer taking graduate students because if they told the truth they wouldn't get hired (not how she put it but how I remember her point).
thank you. "Climate The Movie: The Cold Truth" was produced by Clintel, Martin Durkin and Ted Nelson. In that movie, several scientists share their opinions on the veiled censorship that's going on in the climate industry. You can view the movie here, and I would recommend all watch it.
“The Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits in establishing that the Government has used its power to silence the opposition. Opposition to COVID-19 vaccines; opposition to COVID-19 masking and lockdowns; opposition to the lab-leak theory of COVID-19; opposition to the validity of the 2020 election; opposition to President Biden’s policies; statements that the Hunter Biden laptop story was true; and opposition to policies of the government officials in power. All were suppressed.”
Noticeably missing from this list is the current toxicity over climate; through the leverage of funding, lawfare, and a friendly (but clueless) media, scientists who question the government’s drive to convince us all that climate catastrophe is just around the corner are shunned, silenced, or, at the worst, suspended. The Murthy v. Missouri case is specifically about speech, but indirectly touches on the power of the “bully pulpit” of the White House and its minions. Those who treasure the climate change scam should be reminded daily about the privilege that the First Amendment protects.
Many people argue that the Bill of Rights “grants” certain rights. It does not. Robert Jackson argued that “the very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.” Logically, then, the outcome of an election should not grant the winner the right to suppress those privileges.
I don't know if there was any government attempt to suppress climate skepticism on social media, which is the issue for this case.
Given that the government funds a lot of research it's hard to see how you can avoid selective funding of research that they think is going in the right direction. That's one of the disadvantages of government funding. University departments will naturally prefer to hire people whose research can get funded, which means people who agree with the kind of research the government wants to fund. I saw something a while back by Judith Curry saying that she was no longer taking graduate students because if they told the truth they wouldn't get hired (not how she put it but how I remember her point).
thank you. "Climate The Movie: The Cold Truth" was produced by Clintel, Martin Durkin and Ted Nelson. In that movie, several scientists share their opinions on the veiled censorship that's going on in the climate industry. You can view the movie here, and I would recommend all watch it.
https://eds6.mailcamp.nl/url.php?subid=3vyz2nlq6g5ysm4&nstatid=9gj40j711y&info=n9w3d0v&L=17131&F=H