Not long ago, newly discovered documents revealed that, way back in the 70s, and even before, Exxon scientists were studying the potential impacts of fossil fuel burning on global climate.(see video at end of this piece) Now, a group of Attorneys General is starting to ask why, when they knew the science, Oil giants started paying groups like The American Enterprise Institute, the Heartland Institute, and others, to confuse and deny the facts, and misinform customers and investors.
Having been caught out – the dodge we are now seeing is that denying climate science when you know the truth – is exercising “free speech”. Practically a patriotic duty, fer gosh sakes.
Some friends were doing a little searching in the Tobacco archives for examples of how Tobacco apologists were playing the “our right to free speech” card when caught out lying about what their own scientists knew on the effects of Tobacco products.
Turns out the in 1987, Mobil Oil stood up for Big Tobacco’s right to lie to customers and shareholders about the risks of using, and investing in, their products.
Maybe they were looking forward to a time when they might be in the same hot seat?
Years ago, state and federal prosecutors proved that tobacco companies lied about the dangerous and addictive nature of cigarettes.Big Oil stood up for Big Tobacco’s “right” to lie
Today, state attorneys general are investigating fossil-fuel companies and asking similar questions as their predecessors: what did oil companies know about the dangerous, climate-altering effects of their products, and what did they do to hide that information from investors, the public and policymakers?
The lawsuits against the tobacco companies produced an archive of more than 14 million industry documents, which are available for free to the public. They paint a damning picture of an industry that employed a small army of lawyers and lobbyists to try to hide the truth from the public — and the parallels to the oil industry are undeniable.
Here, video of Tobacco executives exercising “Free Speech”.
For years, tobacco companies and oil companies funded the samegroups, hired the same law firms and the same public relations outfits to achieve the same policy goals — Polluting and harming public health without accountability.
Both industries have even claimed they have a civic right to mislead the public, saying the First Amendment gives them free license to say what they’d like. Just like many of the statements Big Oil and Tobacco make, that is not true. In fact, in 2006, a federal judge presiding over a major tobacco case ruled the First Amendment doesn’t protect statements that are known to be false — such as downplaying the harms of their product.
Big Oil stood up for Big Tobacco’s “right” to lie, too
Oil and tobacco companies weren’t just working together behind the scenes.
Case and point: this 1987 ad (above) from Mobil (yes, that Mobil) which defends the tobacco company R.J. Reynolds’s right to lie to people about cigarettes and heart disease. (We know the font’s little, so we reproduced the ad text in full below.)
So it’s interesting to hear ExxonMobil, the present-day incarnation of Mobil, invoke free speech protections when pushing back against subpoenas from attorneys general, claiming it has a First Amendment right to deceive the public about climate science. They’ll be lucky if that argument holds up in court. After all, they’ve hired the samelawyers who lost the Department of Justice’s fraud case against the tobacco companies.
After a protracted legal fight, R.J. Reynolds eventually settled with the FTC and agreed not to take out advertisements with misleading statements about health risks from smoking.
If reading this shocks you or makes you mad, please share this post on Facebook and Twitter. The oil companies and the tobacco companies can’t be allowed to hide from what they’ve done.
Copy of the ad on the tobacco archives from Mobil (emphasis added).
Free speech is under assault
A basic tenet of our system requires free, unfettered speech to sustain a robust and open marketplace of ideas — a marketplace in which even unpopular views may be espoused and considered. If any groups or opinions are excluded, the marketplace becomes distorted and the right to be heard is weakened for all of us.
Whether one agrees or disagrees with various opinions on smoking or gambling, for example, all points of view have the right to be heard — particularly when the acts involved are perfectly legal. Indeed, even if certain acts are illegal — as the sale of alcohol was during Prohibition — those who favor a change in the law should have the right to voice their opinions. If they lose that right, how would laws ever get changed?
Until recently, little doubt existed about First Amendment protections for free speech. Corporations were felt to have as much right as individualsto advertise their views on public issues — the U.S. Supreme Court said they did in 1978 in First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti. Even “commercial speech” — advertising a product — has First Amendment protection, other decisions held, so long as the ads meet certain condition such as making no claims that are factually false or misleading.
But now, political and commercial speech by business is threatened, and First Amendment guarantees seem weakened:
· A Federal Trade Commission complaint last Spring sought to prevent R.J. Reynolds Company from running further advertisements like the one titled “Of cigarettes and science.” That ad, in national publications, was alleged by the FTC to be “misleading,” even though it did not push any of the company’s cigarette brands or encourage smoking. In the format of a newspaper editorial, it simply contended that a $115 million federal research study failed to prove conclusively any link between cigarettes and heart disease. “We do not claim this study proves that smoking doesn’t cause heart disease,” the ad said, only that “the controversy over smoking and health remains an open one.”
· A 5-to-4 U.S. Supreme Court decision in July upheld Puerto Rico’s refusal to let its legal gambling casinos advertise to the local population, although they are allowed to lure tourists by advertising off the island. Since government has the right to forbid gambling, the court reasoned, it can take “the less intrusive step” of “reducing demand through restrictions on advertising.” But is there any more intrusive action in our democracy than “muzzling” free speech? As the FTC’s new chairman Daniel Oliver — long dissenter in the 4-to-1 Reynolds decision — said: “…it is valuable for the public to hear all sides…I am concerned about…any action that may inhibit free expression of views that might not be popular with government regulators.”
Freedom of speech in America is not simply a means to an end but an end in itself. As the Supreme Court held six years ago in Consolidated Edison Company of New York v. Public Service Commission of New York: “If the marketplace of ideas is to remain free and open, governments must not be allowed to choose which ideas are worth discussing and debating.” Even for governments to restrict dissemination of views on public issues in commercial speech “strikes at the heart of the First Amendment.” Justice Blackmun said at that time in a companion case, labeling this “…a covert attempt…to manipulate the choices of its citizens…by depriving the public of the information needed to make a free choice.”
Fortunately, recent administrative review held that R. J. Reynolds ad to be legitimate “editorial commentary” not subject to FTC censorship. Let us hope the Supreme Court will also come to look upon its Puerto Rico casino decision as an aberration, not a precedent.
For if the First Amendment rights can be denied to casinos and cigarettes, will government be moved by concern over cholesterol to ban ads pushing milk, butter and cheese? Then to crack down on TV commercials showing speeding cars on test tracks lest they encourage violations of the 55 m.p.h. limit? Erosion of a fundamental right, once started, can be as hard to stop as a truck racing downhill without brakes.
Once again, Friends don’t let friends continue without seeing this video.
CO2’s Role in Global Warming Has Been on the Oil Industry’s Radar Since the 1960s
Exxon, First Amendment Doesn’t Give You Right to Commit Fraud
Exxon Using Tobacco’s Failed Free Speech Defense for Decades of Deception on Climate Change
Reblogged this on A Green Road Daily News.
You can’t yell ‘Fire!’ in a crowded theater that is not on Fire. No 1st Amendment protection. How on God’s Green Earth is it OK to yell ‘There’s NO Fire!’ in a crowded theater that you know actually IS on Fire???
“no fire. Hey, and free popcorn!”
No no no no.
https://popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-hackneyed-apologia-for-censorship-are-enough/
https://popehat.com/2015/05/19/how-to-spot-and-critique-censorship-tropes-in-the-medias-coverage-of-free-speech-controversies/
From what I have seen so far, from articles about this case, EXXON’s defense will be that ‘Hey, we never hid anything! Look at all of the published science that we did that confirms what current climate scientists are saying’.
That is the tennis ball that they threw to distract from the real issue, which is: What were they doing and saying out of public view to keep politicians from acting, and to covertly push a ‘fear,uncertainty, and above all, doubt’ campaign, to deceive the public?
Interestingly, the denier squad that has hit the blogs pushing the 1st amendment theme on EXXON’s behalf, continue to also push the shop worn, tired old denier tropes about no warming for ‘X’ years, climategate, various conspiracy theories, Al gore, etc. etc. while totally missing the bit about EXXON (you know, the one that they’re defending) has now totally admitted that AGW is real, and needs to be dealt with.
That’s a little like having the defendant admit in open court that they were guilty of accidentally committing a crime, but they had no ill intent, while their lawyer continues to argue that there never was a crime, much less a victim, and the whole trial is a political frameup anyway.
Freedom of speech does NOT mean freedom to lie on issues of public safety and welfare. It is as simple as that. There indeed SHOULD be a law against lying on issues of public safety.
The looney fundamental religious right is up to their necks in this and Thou shalt not lie and thou shalt not bear false witness are Gods immutable laws for a religious person, in fact should be for all people.
Yet they break those laws without batting an eyelid whilst they presch fire and brimstone on the sinful, the LBGT’s , the infidels and the poor and sick
From the point of view of courts, the free speech argument just doesn’t hold water.
Because of corporations law.
Regardless of any “rights” they may or may not have that normally apply to individual actors, they can’t wriggle out from under their _obligations_ to provide accurate and complete information to current and potential shareholders. Courts don’t look too kindly on corporations that conceal risks to the value of their assets that may impact the future dividend income or the capital value of shares.
I don’t understand how corporations ended up being granted the rights of free speech or even being granted the rights of a human citizen. First off, these human organizations can’t be drafted to war although many may make a lot of money supporting war. But the way they pollute the environment with little regard for others proves they make the worst neighbors. Somehow, they can avoid paying their fair share of taxes but the taxman holds we humans to a different standard. Now I only learned this week that, 100 years ago, the USA had legislation in place to put a corporation to death. Yep, a “corporate death penalty”. Apparently this was gotten rid of by the efforts of Rockefeller in the early 1900s. Anyway, to learn more about the “corporate death penalty” check out this recent video: http://www.thomhartmann.com/bigpicture/should-dole-get-corporate-death-penalty
When a charlatan lies and takes people’s money, it’s bad and he or she goes to jail if caught. But when a corporation lies and takes people’s money, it’s OK, that’s just freedom of speech and consumer choice. So really, corporations are superhumans, where individuals are merely human.
” How on God’s Green Earth is it OK to yell ‘There’s NO Fire!’ in a crowded theater that you know actually IS on Fire???”
Yelling “Fire” is actionable because it puts people into direct, immediate danger and causes injury. If you yell “In thirty years there will be a fire here” people will not stampede, and there is no actionable consequence.
Now, you can’t market a product and lie about its direct efficacy or safety. That has to do with advertising law. Exxon marketed its gasoline as a good product for making your car go. And they were telling the truth.
If you argue that they knew about problems with its NON direct safety, ie, the long-term environmental effects of using its legal product as directed in your car, you are going to have a big problem: YOU burned that gas in your car, not Exxon. And it is the responsibility of the EPA and Congress to regulate products with long-term environmental safety issues. NOT Exxon.
And there IS a free speech issue involved here. Or do you think speech – even corporate speech – that is not 100% truthful should be banned? Good luck with that.
The problem here is that Exxon, the Koch brothers, Rupert Murdoch, Rush Limbaugh, Anthony Watts, etc – as far as I can tell – have not broken any U.S. laws. Don’t hold your breath on the stupid shareholder fraud thing – nothing of consequence is ever coming out of that.
Nor should we settle for such small potatos as the pathetically-small action contemplated by a few State D.A.’s. Exxon et al have committed the worst crime against the human race in history. It is in the International Criminal Court that these culprits should be frog-marched and tried for Crimes Against Humanity. And, if justice be done, they would receive the same penalty as the propagandist for the Third Reich would have received.
Do you have the guts to pursue justice on such a proper scale?