Essay by Eric Worrall
Could voicing support for a climate skeptic position land you with a million dollar fine, if Biden’s “RESTRICT Act” is passed?
Section 3 C of the act appears to give the Attorney General the power to declare receiving news from overseas sources off limits to US Citizens.
In General.—The Secretary, in consultation with the relevant executive department and agency heads, is authorized to and shall take action to identify, deter, disrupt, prevent, prohibit, investigate, or otherwise mitigate, including by negotiating, entering into, or imposing, and enforcing any mitigation measure to address any risk arising from any covered transaction by any person, or with respect to any property, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States that the Secretary determines … coercive or criminal activities by a foreign adversary that are designed to undermine democratic processes and institutions or steer policy and regulatory decisions in favor of the strategic objectives of a foreign adversary to the detriment of the national security of the United States, as determined in coordination with the Attorney General, the Director of National Intelligence, the Secretary of Treasury, and the Federal Election Commission; or
(2) otherwise poses an undue or unacceptable risk to the national security of the United States or the safety of United States persons.
Read more: https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/686/text?s=1&r=15
The Biden Administration frequently defines climate skepticism as disinformation.
The head of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) and Deputy Assistant to the President Dr. Alondra Nelsonapplauded the roundtable participants for providing knowledge which will help to inform and accelerate federal climate action, and cited their work as an example of the value of combining social science with physical science:
…
Now, given the realities of climate change and global warming — including the rigor and soundness of the science, and the increasing evidence of its impacts — one could be tempted to ask, “what’s taken so long?” That brings us to another reality, which this group knows better than most: that there have been for decades, and still are, forces arrayed against the cause of climate action — running the gamut from self-interest and short-term thinking, to deliberate disinformation campaigns that are as insidious as they are invidious.”
…
In closing remarks, White House Senior Advisor Neera Tanden said, “It’s clear that a variety of special interests have had a vested interest in sowing doubt on climate change and feeding denialism and delay. We need to confront that reality. However, despite this organized campaign, a strong majority of the country wants climate action because they understand the consequences of inaction.” …
What kinds of penalties are in store for people caught violating the RESTRICT Act?
(1) IN GENERAL.—A person who willfully commits, willfully attempts to commit, or willfully conspires to commit, or aids or abets in the commission of an unlawful act described in subsection (a) shall, upon conviction, be fined not more than $1,000,000, or if a natural person, may be imprisoned for not more than 20 years, or both.
Read more: https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/686/text?s=1&r=15
I’m not a lawyer, so maybe I have misinterpreted the act. But falling afoul of this act does not appear to require that a crime be committed, all that the act appears to require is a “transaction”, the transmission of information or use of a communication device which the Biden Administration determines is a threat to national security. And there seems little doubt the Biden Administration considers climate skepticism to be a serious threat to national security, going by communiques from the White House on the subject.
Obviously this bill, if passed, would affect a lot more than climate skepticism. In my opinion it would have a chilling effect on all forms of online free speech.