Letter Writer’s Position Actually Advocates Muzzling of Free Speech
Opinion Advocates for ideas and draws conclusions based on the author/producer’s interpretation of facts and data.
With regard to Robert Liebman’s letter “Global Warming Debate Kept Alive to Protect Profits, Prevent Regulations,” June 6-12, I find it a bit disconcerting that he advocates that in order to halt global warming certain civil liberties and constitutional rights must be suspended.
Though it is true that fossil fuel companies and conservative think tanks and institutions have been funding and fueling some of this debate, it is also true that left wing organizations and institutions have been funding the environmentalist movement to further a certain type of narrative and agenda at the expense of true science. An agenda that has more to do with wealth redistribution, socialism and globalism but has very little, if anything, to do with actually helping the environment and quality of life.
As I said in a previous letter recently: follow the money. He says the debate about global warming has been facilitated by disinformation, but exactly who gets to determine what is “disinformation?” President Vladimir Putin of Russia has arrested and prosecuted people for spreading disinformation, ditto for President Maduro of Venezuela and President Erdogan of Turkey. Are these the dictators and authoritarian leaders Mr. Liebman seeks to emulate?
Even in this country, the more extreme elements of the environmentalist movement seek not to only criminally prosecute the corporations that are accused of polluting the environment but also the scientists and researchers whom they label “climate deniers” or skeptics. He says that public debate must end if global warming is to come to a halt. It reminds me of what Chairman Mao Zedong said in 1949 after the communists came to power in China – that in order for socialism and the revolution to be fully implemented debate and dissension must end. Likewise with Fidel Castro in 1959 when he took power in Cuba. Are these the historical examples that he wishes to emulate?
When reading his letter, I’m reminded of the essay by Marxist philosopher and theorist Herbert Marcuse “Repressive Tolerance,” in which he advocates that “pure tolerance” of all views be replaced with a “liberating tolerance,” which would mean an intolerance and suppression of movements and viewpoints from the right, and toleration of movements and viewpoints from the left.
It thus becomes a very slippery slope to authoritarianism or even outright totalitarianism. He would do well to read this document called the U.S. Constitution, specifically the Bill of Rights and the First Amendment – the one which guarantees and protects freedom of speech.
Bruce Kelly
Mahopac
Examiner Media – Keeping you informed with professionally-reported local news, features, and sports coverage.