• themeatbridge@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    Right, but they didn’t face consequences for making unscientific statements or promoting scientific disinformation. I think they should have, but that’s not the justice system we got. The world would be a better place if science denialism was a crime.

    They faced consequences for defamatory comparisons to sex criminals. Which is also a crime, and should be a crime. I’m not complaining about that. I just wouldn’t count this as a victory for climate science.

    • LilNaib@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 months ago

      You make an important point: constitutionally-protected speech is the strongest link in their defense.

      These people almost always have social media accounts, personal website hosting, and other business arrangements. None of this business is constitutionally protected and all of these business partners can be identified and many can be persuaded to cut ties. For years people have been using vague untargeted appeals to decency and it has gotten no results at all. We need to target their business partners with boycots and consumer education in the same way that wish.com became a synonym for low quality.