Holding purveyors of anti-gun junk science accountable?
by Kurt Hofmann
St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner
An article last month in the Conducive Chronicle raised the question of civil liability for publishing studies (or enabling their publishing) that support the “wrong” side of the climate change debate–or even making involvement in such studies illegal (emphasis added):
Which raises the question: if these studies are largely designed not to shed light on climate change, but to create doubt and confusion to delay greenhouse gas regulations, why is it legal, and do those deliberately spreading misinformation face liability?
Entrance into the debate about anthropogenic climate change is obviously far beyond the scope of St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner, so what am I getting at? Just that if, as the article puts it, “deliberate manipulation of science” in an effort to influence policy becomes illegal, the forcible citizen disarmament lobby might want to “lawyer up.”
Examples? Glad you asked.