Free Speech in Science project

From (lawyers) David B. Rivkin Jr. and Andrew M. Grossman here:

We help scientists, writers, businesses and others targeted for speaking out on scientific issues and policy to defend themselves.

Yes, but who needs free speech when we’ve got Science? 😉

Most recently, their target is the Climate change bureaucracy (March 23, 2016):

Assuming the mantle of Grand Inquisitor is Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D., R.I.). Last spring he called on the Justice Department to bring charges against those behind a “coordinated strategy” to spread heterodox views on global warming, including the energy industry, trade associations, “conservative policy institutes” and scientists. Mr. Whitehouse, a former prosecutor, identified as a legal basis for charges that the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, or RICO, the federal statute enacted to take down mafia organizations and drug cartels. […]

Intimidation is the point of these efforts. Individual scientists, think tanks and private businesses are no match for the vast powers that government officials determined to stifle dissent are able to wield. An onslaught of investigations—with the risk of lawsuits, prosecution and punishment—is more than most can afford to bear. As a practical reality, defending First Amendment rights in these circumstances requires the resources to take on the government and win—no matter the cost or how long it takes.

It also requires taking on the Climate Inquisition directly. Spurious government investigations, driven by the desire to suppress a particular viewpoint, constitute illegal retaliation against protected speech and, as such, can be checked by the courts, with money damages potentially available against the federal and state perpetrators. If anyone is going to be intimidated, it should be officials who are willing to abuse their powers to target speech with which they disagree.

As every true scientist knows, doubt and difference are signs of a sick mind.  😉

You don’t reach the same conclusions as the Consensus? You need therapy.

The project will fund legal advice and defense to those who need it, while executing an offense to turn the tables on abusive officials. Scientists, policy organizations and others should not have to fear that they will be the next victims of the Climate Inquisition—that they may face punishment and personal ruin for engaging in research and advocating their views. More.

We hope they have invested in crowd control.

Note: One thing some of us learned in the free speech wars in Canada is that many people actually do not think it proper or polite anymore to disagree with established figures merely on the basis of evidence. The establishment, you see, has the right to decide what evidence matters and how it should be interpreted.

Also, traditional media were once genuine gatekeepers of news (for better or worse). Then, they tended to be pro-freedom because they needed freedom themselves. As they struggle with seas of red ink, they need government more than government needs them, with predictable results. Media will more often be seen backing suppressions mounted by governments they are in sync with. Not always, to be sure, but the culture is in transition, and trending that way.

  • What a sad state of affairs. The universities need to be housecleaned.

    • Alain

      A good start would be to cease all government funding, be it through grants or anything else.