• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

California Warmists Assault the First Amendment

eohrnberger said:
Also as posted previously, just the consideration of this type of prosecution is far too close for comfort, a danger sign of what far too easily follows.
Click to expand...

:roll:

Sure. Punishing businesses for deliberate fraud and deceit leads to chips in your brain monitoring thoughts. Ok buddy. Tinfoil hat subforum is that way.
 
Deuce said:
:roll:

Sure. Punishing businesses for deliberate fraud and deceit leads to chips in your brain monitoring thoughts. Ok buddy. Tinfoil hat subforum is that way.
Click to expand...

The bill criminalizes disagreement.
 
Deuce said:
Which section does that?
Click to expand...

[h=6]342.5.[/h] (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.
 
Jack Hays said:
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.
Click to expand...

The word "disagreement" appears nowhere in that section.

Nor does that section mention criminal charges.

Your claim is, as of yet, completely unsupported.
 
Last edited:
Deuce said:
The word "disagreement" appears nowhere in that section.

Nor does that section mention criminal charges.

Your claim is, as of yet, completely unsupported.
Click to expand...

It is a section of the criminal code. I hope your alliance with the fascists brings you comfort.
 
Deuce said:
:roll:

Sure. Punishing businesses for deliberate fraud and deceit leads to chips in your brain monitoring thoughts. Ok buddy. Tinfoil hat subforum is that way.
Click to expand...

If you were familiar with how liberal/socialist progressives have rolled out climate change legislation, you wouldn't let your ignorance on the subject post such sarcastic responses.

The first nail in the economic coffin was pounded home by the State Legislature against the wishes of the citizens, in the dead of night, on a Saturday. California AB 1493 was a gut and paste bill that led to AB 32, again passed against citizens wishes. In those moves, California became the first government body on earth to regulate exhaled breath.

The slippery slope is actually a cliff in California, so this type of threatened legislation should not be taken lightly. Socialist progressives are working hard to create a totalitarian state, so it's important not to ignore these efforts to shut people up in the name of the State.
 
Jack Hays said:
It is a section of the criminal code. I hope your alliance with the fascists brings you comfort.
Click to expand...

And yet, it doesn't support your assertion. It specifically refers to "unfair business practices," not "disagreement."

So, unless you can show "disagreement" is considered an "unfair business practice," you are proven wrong by your own copy/paste.
 
ocean515 said:
If you were familiar with how liberal/socialist progressives have rolled out climate change legislation, you wouldn't let your ignorance on the subject post such sarcastic responses.

The first nail in the economic coffin was pounded home by the State Legislature against the wishes of the citizens, in the dead of night, on a Saturday. California AB 1493 was a gut and paste bill that led to AB 32, again passed against citizens wishes. In those moves, California became the first government body on earth to regulate exhaled breath.

The slippery slope is actually a cliff in California, so this type of threatened legislation should not be taken lightly. Socialist progressives are working hard to create a totalitarian state, so it's important not to ignore these efforts to shut people up in the name of the State.
Click to expand...

Another legal assertion that has yet to be supported with evidence. I wont hold my breath.

*rimshot*
 
Jack Hays said:
It does, but you're in denial.
Click to expand...

It specifically refers to "unfair business practices," not "disagreement."

You proved yourself wrong.
 
Deuce said:
It specifically refers to "unfair business practices," not "disagreement."

You proved yourself wrong.
Click to expand...

". . . 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. . . . "





first-of-its-kind legislation


 
Jack Hays said:
". . . 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. . . . "





first-of-its-kind legislation
Click to expand...


Yes, that's what I said buddy.
 
Jack Hays said:
A euphemism for suppression of dissent. Sort of like "states rights" as a justification for segregation.
Click to expand...

So let's clarify.

You, Jack Hays, are asserting that the State of California defines "disagreement" as "unfair competition."
 
Deuce said:
Ok. Show me that section.
Click to expand...

I have already linked the entire bill for you. Beyond that:

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.
​
 
Jack Hays said:
I have already linked the entire bill for you. Beyond that:

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.
​
Click to expand...

Nothing in that bill defined "disagreement" as an "unfair business practice."

Show me the regulation that does.

Thousands of bills have made declarations of fact as a sort of justification for the law being made, and not a single one of them has ever said "it's a crime to disagree with these facts." This one doesn't either. You posted it yourself. Nothing in that text defines "disagreement" as a crime of any sort. It's plain text, and it doesn't say what you claim.

Show me the regulation defining "disagreement" as any kind of crime.
 
Deuce said:
Nothing in that bill defined "disagreement" as an "unfair business practice."

Show me the regulation that does.
Click to expand...

And no southern governor ever said "states rights" was code for "keep the _______ in their place."
 
Jack Hays said:
And no southern governor ever said "states rights" was code for "keep the _______ in their place."
Click to expand...

Right. So you're now admitting it doesn't actually say it's a crime to disagree. No legal language actually exists to support that. You're admitting it. You just think it's a "between the lines" kind of thing.
 
Deuce said:
Another legal assertion that has yet to be supported with evidence. I wont hold my breath.

*rimshot*
Click to expand...

Please hold your breath. 30 minutes at minimum. Just kidding.


ENVIRONMENT: California Out in Front

https://www.nrdc.org/media/2002/020722

The law -- known as AB 1493 -- is the first of its kind anywhere in world, and marks a dramatic change in the national global warming debate, according to NRDC (the Natural Resources Defense Council). It reaffirms California's successful 40-year leadership in pollution safeguards and clean vehicle technologies.​


Go ahead and run away. I'm used to your ilk demanding evidence, and then when provided, slink off into the shadows because it would appear you can't handle being wrong.

Any wonder why people don't want to take the time and effort to provide the information?
 
Jack Hays said:
It is impossible to understand the "California Climate Science Truth and Accountability Act" any other way.

California Lawmakers Poised To Make It Illegal To Question Global WarmingDaily Caller‎ - 3 days ago
Click to expand...


Business and Professions Code Section 17200-17210 - California

It's impossible to understand anything by reading the Daily Caller. The new law makes no substantive change in the meaning of California unfair business practices. It does not disallow questions about the reality or extent of climate change. It does extend the statute of limitations for prosecuting an unfair business practice that relied on lying about specific scientific evidence concerning climate change.
 
Deuce said:
Another legal assertion that has yet to be supported with evidence. I wont hold my breath.

*rimshot*
Click to expand...

Here's a little more information, legal, for you to run from.

It details how the liberal/socialist progressives creating the totalitarian state of California came about being the first government in the world to enact these fraud filled programs.

California acts to limit CO2 emissions | Heartlander Magazine

Support for AB 1058 among legislators disappeared as constituents learned more about the few advantages and many disadvantages of the bill.

Supporters of carbon dioxide curbs did not, however, throw in the towel with the defeat of AB 1058. Learning their lessons about the high cost of public debate, predominantly Democratic lawmakers employed a secretive, backroom political process reminiscent of Tammany Hall.

On Friday, June 28, supporters of AB 1058 hijacked an unrelated bill, AB 1493, gutted it of its major provisions, and inserted the unpopular AB 1058 mandates in their place. The bill was rushed to the California State Senate, where it was approved quickly and quietly, without discussion or debate.​

And thus, California became the first government body on Earth to identify CO2 as a GHG, against the wishes of Californians, by deceit, via lies, and shady agreements. A standard all liberal/socialist progressives should be proud of.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom