Australia Strangles Free Speech to Protect Carbon Tax

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/money/dont-serve-carbon-lies/story-e6frezc0-1226366534694

Hard to believe. (well no actually, once you cave in to liberal big gov't this is inevitable)

 

Here is an idea, how about people like Al Gore pay $1.1 million for lies in his movie to sell the carbon tax?

It seems to me that dealing with the government today is almost like dealing with the mob. Mess with their $$$$ and they will take you out!!

 

A business can use any darn excuse it wants. The Government should have zero right to tell a business to prove why it decided to commit an act.

This is what passes as progressivism?

When will people stop loving bossy government?

 

Progressivism is a kinder, gentler form of tyranny. Instead of being sent to an inquisition or a concentration camp they just fine you millions of dollars.

 

That is not even the worst of it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xv3OLKsQ83k&feature=related

(be sure to skip to the last few seconds of the video afterwards)

 

Since when is businesses lying to customers a free speech issue?

 

You don't get it do you? It is akin to saying that FDR's New Deal broaght the US out of the Depression. There is evidence on both sides of the arguement, but in the end nothing can be proved. In relation to the carbon tax, who do you think will pay for it? Will it be big business? Nope. Sure, big business will pay for it......but then pass it down to the consumer in some form or fashion. Now prove that they did this. You can't do it. I'm sure their government has "masterdebators" ready to pounce on its citizenery.

 

Don't get me wrong, logic is a wonderful thing but it can also be used as a weapon.

For example, take the following:

1. CO2 emissions can theoretically cause a greenhouse effect and subequent global warming. Check

2. The climate is warming and there are CO2 emissions. Check

3. All of the global warming must be related to those CO2 emissions. Epic failure

It's kinda like this scenerio

1. Drunk people become happy when they are drunk. Check.

2. All who go to heaven are happy. Check.

3. Now lets all get drunk and go to heaven!!!

 

Or tell the pilot NEVER turn on the seatbelt sign and we won't have turbulence......correlation does not imply causality.


The math doesn't work either. CO2 is 3.5% of the total GH effect in the atmosphere...human CO2 is (coincidentally) 3.5% of total CO2 emissions. All these crushing taxes are planned (at best) to cut back human CO2 by 20%.

.035 X .035 X .2 = .000245 AT BEST factor of reduction of the GH effect......it is laughable......

The whole AGW thing is a political scam for social change...anyone with a brain can see it.

 

Na, government just like big pots of money. It has nothing to do with social change other than robbing from society and perhaps trying to have more sway on industry.

 

Absolutely false!
CO2 is about 25% of the GHG effect:
Ramanathan_Coakley, 1978 and Kiehl and Trenberth 1997

Science is based on correlation implying causality if there is a proven mechanism. If a pool ball transfers its energy to another pool ball there is correlation and causality because the conservation of energy.

 

If global warming is really destroying the planet, how much of a difference will cap and tax make in your opinion? In fact, how much of a difference has it made for countries who have embraced it? And lastly, do you stand to make a small fortune from the Chicago Climate Exchange?

 

Yeah I agree that the current opposition would probably try this

(you ARE aware are you not that "liberal" has an opposite meaning here lola!!)

BTW nice spin on the article so apart from mixing the whole Liberal/Labor thing here - how many other ways are you wrong

Well, there is the point that we don't actually HAVE any laws governing "free speech"

There is the fact that we already have laws in place saying that if you are selling something it had better bloody match your description. I am betting it is the same in America otherwise you might end up eating i feral cat instead of chicken in your take away

 

Here is an idea how about we stop paying twonks like "Lord Monkton" to spread ridiculous rumours, lies and misinformation about climate science

 

You are not answering the question

Since when is businesses lying to customers a free speech issue?

 

Since they imposed a million dollar tax. Apparently they are free to tell their customers any other lies. The bottom line is that the state is horrified that cap and tax will get bad press and threaten their pot of gold. They care about nothing else and would have us believe that cap and tax will not cost us a dime when, in fact, that is a bold face lie. As a matter of fact, since when is it OK for politicians to lie to the populace that they proport to represent but it business owners will be fined a million dollars for their lies? I'm all for equality on this issue!!

 

Massive fail in thread.

SHOPS and restaurants could face fines up to $1.1 million if waiters or sales staff wrongly blame the carbon tax for price rises or exaggerate the impact.

 

Nope - you see this is not the political arm of "the government" but the bureaucratic arm of "the government". The ACCC already has this function of overseeing truth in advertising - they are just letting people know ahead of time that they will not tolerate lies

Yeah but all pollies lie - it is what they are actually selling, lies - that is why the ACCC can't fine THEM

 

Noooooooo!! Apparently it is OK for restaurants to lie to customers because that is "free speech"

Remind me never to eat in America!!

 

http://www.heartattackgrill.com/

 

You know I have a real problem with the sexualisation of nurses as it is shown here - it engenders a cognitive association between my profession and the "oldest profession". I had enough comments in my life about "Nurse eh? Bet you have seen it all!"

 

Only pollies are allowed to lie and then make everyone else pay millions of dollars for lying through their tool the ACCC? Sounds fair to me.

Now where did I put that pitch fork?

 

I'm going to watch my step here. Firstly, point taken. Secondly, it didn't occur to me to make that association, but the point, I have to stress, is taken. Thirdly I'm....best if I shut up now

 

Right then, to reiterate - it is an issue regarding misrepresentation of pricing, not a restriction on free speech. We know there is no absolute freedom of speech, to paraphrase J.S. Mill, that would be licence, not freedom. It is not onerous to demand truth and responsibility.

 

In a free market you cannot require a supplier (the restaurant) to divulge its cost structure to its customer.

What will be next ?, the car dealer is required to truthfully answer if you ask for his invoice, overhead, labor and mark-up??