The Court Ruling which could Outlaw Climate Skepticism

The Court Ruling which could Outlaw Climate Skepticism. By Eric Worrall.

Vanuatu has urged Australia to join its push to have the United Nations International Court of Justice rule that states are “obliged to use all the means at its disposal in order to avoid activities” which lead to more CO2 emissions. …

Could this “use all means” principle extend to silencing skeptics?

I want to make it clear at this point, I’m not a lawyer. So my interpretation could be wrong.

My limited understanding, for US skeptics at least, the first amendment provides some protection. But there are limits. US citizens aren’t allowed to make public speech which advocates unlawful violence against other citizens. People can be sued or criminally prosecuted for the harm their public speech causes, such as yelling “fire” in a crowded theatre when there is no fire, or for libel, telling lies in public which harm the reputation and earnings of their victim.

My concern is, if climate change is recognised under the no harm principle, then telling people there is no problem, when the ICJ has recognised there is a problem, could be interpreted as spreading falsehoods to deliberately put people in harms way. Just as yelling “fire” in a crowded theatre puts people in harms way if there is no fire, so telling people there is no fire when the court has recognised the fire is real, could equally be interpreted as placing people in harms way.

Obviously the UN has no direct authority, for now, over the lives of citizens. But would someone like President Biden defend the rights of a US citizen against a UN International Arrest Warrant, issued by a party which claimed a [climate skeptical] article caused international harm, by encouraging the burning of more coal? Would deep green Prime Ministers like Boris Johnson, Justin Trudeau or Anthony Albanese (Australia) stand up for the rights of a climate skeptic?

In the USA, there is a strong push to censor climate skepticism. In April this year, President Obama claimed the first amendment does not apply to the online censorship of climate skeptics. In Australia, doctors lost the freedom to criticise government policy, after some doctors expressed alarm at Covid vaccine side effects …

Those who would crush dissent are continuously looking for a loophole, a way to silence opponents, which is applicable within existing legal frameworks of laws which are meant to protect our freedoms.

You know they want to silence us. Global blacklists and downranking websites to oblivion are not enough any more.