1stamend2 rcvr

=<div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">EXXON ASSERTS 1ST 4TH 14TH</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><a href="http://climatecasechart.com/climate-change-litigation/case/exxon-mobil-corp-v-healey/">http://climatecasechart.com/climate-change-litigation/case/exxon-mobil-corp-v-healey/</a></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div><header class="entry-header" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 20px; padding: 0px;"><h1 class="entry-title" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.2;">Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Healey</h1><div class="entry-meta" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 20px; padding: 0px; font-weight: 700;"><div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">Filing Date: 2016</div></div><div class="entry-taxonomy case_category" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; clear: both; overflow: hidden;"><div class="label" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 10px 0px 0px; padding: 0px; font-weight: 700; float: left;">Case Categories:</div><div class="entry-taxonomy-items" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; float: left; max-width: 80%;"><div class="entry-taxonomy-item" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><ul class="taxonomy-box" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; display: inline;"><li class="cat-item cat-item-432" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; list-style-type: none; display: inline;"><a href="http://climatecasechart.com/climate-change-litigation/case-category/constitutional-claims/" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; background: 0px 0px; transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out 0s; text-decoration-line: none; border: 0px; display: inline-block;">Constitutional Claims</a> <ul class="children" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; display: inline;"> <li class="cat-item cat-item-433" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; list-style-type: none; display: inline;"><a href="http://climatecasechart.com/climate-change-litigation/case-category/commerce-clause/" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; background: 0px 0px; transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out 0s; text-decoration-line: none; border: 0px; display: inline-block;">Commerce Clause</a></li></ul></li></ul></div><div class="entry-taxonomy-item" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><ul class="taxonomy-box" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; display: inline;"><li class="cat-item cat-item-432" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; list-style-type: none; display: inline;"><a href="http://climatecasechart.com/climate-change-litigation/case-category/constitutional-claims/" style="background-image: initial; background-position: 0px 0px; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out 0s; text-decoration-line: none; border: 0px; display: inline-block;">Constitutional Claims</a> <ul class="children" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; display: inline;"> <li class="cat-item cat-item-434" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; list-style-type: none; display: inline;"><a href="http://climatecasechart.com/climate-change-litigation/case-category/first-amendment/" style="background: 0px 0px rgb(255, 255, 102); box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out 0s; text-decoration-line: none; border: 0px; display: inline-block;">First Amendment</a></li></ul></li></ul></div><div class="entry-taxonomy-item" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><ul class="taxonomy-box" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; display: inline;"><li class="cat-item cat-item-422" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; list-style-type: none; display: inline;"><a href="http://climatecasechart.com/climate-change-litigation/case-category/state-law-claims/" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; background: 0px 0px; transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out 0s; text-decoration-line: none; border: 0px; display: inline-block;">State Law Claims</a> <ul class="children" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; display: inline;"> <li class="cat-item cat-item-426" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; list-style-type: none; display: inline;"><a href="http://climatecasechart.com/climate-change-litigation/case-category/enforcement-cases/" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; background: 0px 0px; transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out 0s; text-decoration-line: none; border: 0px; display: inline-block;">Enforcement Cases</a></li></ul></li></ul></div><div class="entry-taxonomy-item" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><ul class="taxonomy-box" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; display: inline;"><li class="cat-item cat-item-432" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; list-style-type: none; display: inline;"><a href="http://climatecasechart.com/climate-change-litigation/case-category/constitutional-claims/" style="background-image: initial; background-position: 0px 0px; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out 0s; text-decoration-line: none; border: 0px; display: inline-block;">Constitutional Claims</a> <ul class="children" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; display: inline; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"> <li class="cat-item cat-item-436" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; list-style-type: none; display: inline;"><a href="http://climatecasechart.com/climate-change-litigation/case-category/fourteenth-amendment/" style="background-image: initial; background-position: 0px 0px; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out 0s; text-decoration-line: none; border: 0px; display: inline-block;">Fourteenth Amendment</a></li></ul></li></ul></div><div class="entry-taxonomy-item" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><ul class="taxonomy-box" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; display: inline;"><li class="cat-item cat-item-432" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; list-style-type: none; display: inline;"><a href="http://climatecasechart.com/climate-change-litigation/case-category/constitutional-claims/" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; background: 0px 0px; transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out 0s; text-decoration-line: none; border: 0px; display: inline-block;">Constitutional Claims</a> <ul class="children" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; display: inline;"> <li class="cat-item cat-item-437" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; list-style-type: none; display: inline;"><a href="http://climatecasechart.com/climate-change-litigation/case-category/other-constitutional-claims/" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; background: 0px 0px; transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out 0s; text-decoration-line: none; border: 0px; display: inline-block;">Other Constitutional Claims</a></li></ul></li></ul></div></div></div><div class="entry-taxonomy principal_law" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; clear: both; overflow: hidden;"><div class="label" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 10px 0px 0px; padding: 0px; font-weight: 700; float: left;">Principal Laws:</div><div class="entry-taxonomy-items" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; float: left; max-width: 80%;"><div class="entry-taxonomy-item" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><a href="http://climatecasechart.com/climate-change-litigation/principle-law/first-amendment/" style="background-image: initial; background-position: 0px 0px; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out 0s; text-decoration-line: none; border: 0px; display: inline-block;">First Amendment</a>, <a href="http://climatecasechart.com/climate-change-litigation/principle-law/fourth-amendment/" style="background-image: initial; background-position: 0px 0px; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out 0s; text-decoration-line: none; border: 0px; display: inline-block;">Fourth Amendment</a>, <a href="http://climatecasechart.com/climate-change-litigation/principle-law/fourteenth-amendment/" style="background-image: initial; background-position: 0px 0px; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out 0s; text-decoration-line: none; border: 0px; display: inline-block;">Fourteenth Amendment</a>, <a href="http://climatecasechart.com/climate-change-litigation/principle-law/commerce-clause/" style="background-image: initial; background-position: 0px 0px; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out 0s; text-decoration-line: none; border: 0px; display: inline-block;">Commerce Clause</a>, <a href="http://climatecasechart.com/climate-change-litigation/principle-law/supremacy-clause/" style="background-image: initial; background-position: 0px 0px; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out 0s; text-decoration-line: none; border: 0px; display: inline-block;">Supremacy Clause</a>, <a href="http://climatecasechart.com/climate-change-litigation/principle-law/state-law-common-law/" style="background-image: initial; background-position: 0px 0px; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out 0s; text-decoration-line: none; border: 0px; display: inline-block;">State Law—Common Law</a></div></div></div></header><div class="entry-content" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><div class="case-content" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 20px; padding: 0px;"><div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">Description: Action by Exxon Mobil Corporation to bar enforcement of civil investigative demand issued by Massachusetts attorney general and subpoena issued by New York attorney general.</div><div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">[LONG LIST OF DOCS, OTHER CASES]</div></div></div></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">=</div></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">new</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><div>=</div><div>aha-let: claim 1st amend is just cover for freedumb privilege // PC cancel culture BS = ID victim = Powell Memo not level field</div><div>
</div><div>// lib lamestream media reality has leftwing bias</div><div>
</div><div><a href="https://www.alternet.org/2021/10/law-professor-expertly-shuts-down-sen-ron-johnson-s-false-claim-that-social-media-biased-against-the-right/">https://www.alternet.org/2021/10/law-professor-expertly-shuts-down-sen-ron-johnson-s-false-claim-that-social-media-biased-against-the-right/</a>no lnx twt
Law professor expertly shuts down Sen. Ron Johnson's false claim that social media is biased against the right Meaghan Ellis October 30, 2021One law expert had a particularly insightful response to Ron Johnson's (R-Wisc.) arguments suggesting social media oversight typically tilts in favor of the left. During the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs on Friday, October 29, Johnson shared his grievances about social media appearing to be more favorable for liberal media.However, Dr. Mary Anne Franks pushed back against Johnson's claims as she decimated his suggestion of liberal bias on social media platforms. Franks, a professor of law at the University of Miami School of Law and Michael R. Klein Distinguished Scholar Chair, masterfully explained how right-wing extremism is at the root of the problem and why right-wing content must be regulated.While she did acknowledge that Americans have a right to free speech, she also explained why it does not apply in this particular case."Yes, we do have a First Amendment," Franks said. "We do have a right to free speech but we also know, of course, that private companies are not obligated under the First Amendment to take all comers. They are allowed to make their own decisions about what is considered to be high-quality and low-quality content. They can make any number of decisions and I think we would applaud them in many cases to make those decisions.In a hearing in the Senate Committee on Homeland Security & Gov Affairs today, @ma_franks had a sharp response to S… https://t.co/jqiJcjDNjv— Justin Hendrix (@Justin Hendrix) 1635450216.0She went on to pinpoint the real problem with right-wing content and why it appears to be censored more than left-wing content. In short, it has to be."When it comes to the questions of conservative vs. liberal bias, this is not a notion that I am suggesting here. This is not about intuitions or impressions although I know that those can go in many different directions," Franks explained.She continued, "This is about what the data actually suggests. The data actually do indicate that right-wing content is more amplified on these social media platforms than left-wing content and that right-wing content is more disproportionately associated with real-world violence; not hurt feelings, people being upset but, in fact, actual violence, actual armed insurrections, actual notions of terrorism, and anarchy."</div><div></div><div><div style="font-size: small;">=</div><div style="font-size: small;"><a href="https://www.desmog.com/2022/10/07/slapp-lawsuits-exxon-chemrisk-dapl-climate-change-raskin/" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">
</a></div><div style="font-size: small;"><a href="https://www.desmog.com/2022/10/07/slapp-lawsuits-exxon-chemrisk-dapl-climate-change-raskin/" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">https://www.desmog.com/2022/10/07/slapp-lawsuits-exxon-chemrisk-dapl-climate-change-raskin/</a></div><div style="font-size: small;">
</div><div style="font-size: small;"> Emily SandersIn 2018, Krystal Two Bulls received notice that she was being sued for criminal conspiracy.Two Bulls, who is Oglala Lakota and North Cheyenne, has been organizing for environmental justice for much of her life. She was raised on the North Cheyenne Indian Reservation of Lame Deer, Montana, part of a community that had resisted coal developments for nearly 40 years. In 2016, she helped defeat Arch Coal’s plans to build a massive strip mining operation on the reservation’s border. The project would’ve been one of the largest coal mines in the United States. Later that same year, Two Bulls received an urgent call for assistance from land and water protectors at Standing Rock, North Dakota, who were working to oppose the construction of the <a href="https://www.desmog.com/energy-transfer-partners-bakken-oil-pipeline-through-iowa/" data-wpel-link="internal" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; box-shadow: none;">Dakota Access pipeline</a>, which transports crude oil from North Dakota to Illinois.When Two Bulls arrived, the conflict between protestors and local police was escalating. Her auntie, Dr. Sara Jumping Eagle, had <a href="https://www.democracynow.org/2016/10/18/standing_rock_sioux_pediatrician_threat_from" data-wpel-link="external" target="blank" rel="external noopener noreferrer" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; box-shadow: none;">recently been arrested</a> after standing in the path of a bulldozer set to dig up human remains at an ancestral burial site. Two Bulls spent three-and-a-half months supporting and sustaining the camp — handling basic logistics like providing protestors with food, warm clothing, and other necessities — all in the face of <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/29/standing-rock-protest-north-dakota-shutdown-evacuation" data-wpel-link="external" target="blank" rel="external noopener noreferrer" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; box-shadow: none;">violence</a> by state police. She then helped to launch the <a href="https://nodaplsolidarity.org/" data-wpel-link="external" target="blank" rel="external noopener noreferrer" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; box-shadow: none;">No DAPL Solidarity Campaign</a>, a global movement to back the Indigenous opposition to the pipeline. It wasn’t until a year after camp was shut down that Two Bulls, who came to North Dakota on her own dime and left in debt, found out she was being sued for millions of dollars by the pipeline developer, Energy Transfer Partners. The charges were brought under the Racketeering Influenced Corrupt Practices (RICO) Act, a law originally designed to prosecute the mafia. The company claimed that through her “calls to action,” including a statement on Greenpeace’s website asking “all people from around the world to take action” and “come stand with us” against the Dakota Access pipeline, Two Bulls and others had conspired to interfere with Energy Transfer’s business operations and engaged in organized crime. The individuals and groups’ opposition, the company claimed, was defamatory and cost key investments in its pipeline.In 2017, The Intercept reported on documents leaked from former personnel at an international security firm, TigerSwan, revealing that Energy Transfer had <a href="https://theintercept.com/2017/11/15/dakota-access-pipeline-dapl-tigerswan-energy-transfer-partners-rico-lawsuit/" data-wpel-link="external" target="blank" rel="external noopener noreferrer" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; box-sizing: border-box; box-shadow: none;">paid the firm</a> to use military-style surveillance and infiltration tactics to gather information that could be deployed in a RICO lawsuit against the anti-pipeline activists. Two Bulls is just one of many victims of the fossil fuel industry’s use of SLAPPs — strategic lawsuits against public participation — to silence and intimidate its critics. <a href="https://earthrights.org/publication/the-fossil-fuel-industrys-use-of-slapps-and-judicial-harassment-in-the-united-states/" data-wpel-link="external" target="blank" rel="external noopener noreferrer" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; box-sizing: border-box; box-shadow: none;">A report</a> released last month by legal advocacy nonprofit EarthRights International identified 152 instances of <a href="https://exxonknews.substack.com/p/steven-donziger-on-freedom-under" data-wpel-link="external" target="blank" rel="external noopener noreferrer" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; box-sizing: border-box; box-shadow: none;">legal and judicial harassment</a> by fossil fuel corporations to suppress dissent in the United States over the past 10 years, including 93 SLAPP lawsuits. Just this week, a California oil industry trade association <a href="https://biologicaldiversity.org/w/news/press-releases/california-oil-group-pays-fees-to-advocacy-groups-it-harassed-but-dodges-multimillion-dollar-judgment-2022-10-03/#.YzyAqGbeG24.twitter" data-wpel-link="external" target="blank" rel="external noopener noreferrer" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; box-sizing: border-box; box-shadow: none;">paid nearly $650,000 in fees</a> to the city of Los Angeles and several environmental advocacy groups the company <a href="https://www.desmog.com/2017/04/03/youth-color-lawsuit-los-angeles-drilling-discrimination-oil-industry/" data-wpel-link="internal" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; box-sizing: border-box; box-shadow: none;">had targeted in court for years</a> following the city’s implementation of new environmental safety requirements for drilling applicants. After declaring bankruptcy, the California Independent Petroleum Association was allowed to pay only a fraction of a judgment initially awarded to the city and groups by a trial court that ruled the lawsuit was a SLAPP.“With the strengthening of our movements, the revelation of how long the fossil fuel industry has been aware of how their practices impact and contribute to climate change, and the rise of legal cases against oil and gas corporations, these companies are becoming more desperate to silence the voices of their critics,” said Deepa Padmanabha, deputy general counsel at Greenpeace USA.  A wide range of concerned groups, from community organizers to members of Congress, are taking up the fight against SLAPPs. Last month, the House Oversight Subcommittee on Civil Rights and Civil Liberties <a href="https://oversight.house.gov/legislation/hearings/free-speech-under-attack-part-iii-the-legal-assault-on-environmental-activists" data-wpel-link="external" target="blank" rel="external noopener noreferrer" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; box-shadow: none;">held a hearing</a> to expose the fossil fuel industry’s use of SLAPPs and its backing of <a href="https://www.desmog.com/2017/12/11/alec-model-bill-pipeline-protesters/" data-wpel-link="internal" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; box-shadow: none;">bills to criminalize protest</a>. The committee’s witnesses, including Padmanabha and others, explained that corporations were using these tactics to suppress activists’ ability to freely voice dissent.The day after the hearing, Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD), the subcommittee chairman, introduced the <a href="https://raskin.house.gov/cache/files/f/b/fbb6b8d1-fa69-4c17-adbb-6445ff63b8a0/291D1533375A72AC20E4EB67F9244109.bill-text---slapp-protection-act.pdf" data-wpel-link="external" target="blank" rel="external noopener noreferrer" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; box-sizing: border-box; box-shadow: none;">SLAPP Protection Act of 2022</a> — the first federal legislation that would “establish a procedure to dismiss, punish, and deter strategic lawsuits against public participation.” Advocates say the bill could create a sorely needed protection for individuals and community groups who speak out against fossil fuel infrastructure, and an important safeguard for free speech at large.According to EarthRights International, the proposed legislation <a href="https://earthrights.org/an-in-depth-look-at-raskin-federal-anti-slapp-legislation/" data-wpel-link="external" target="blank" rel="external noopener noreferrer" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; box-shadow: none;">would provide</a> a federal mechanism for SLAPP suits to be quickly identified and dismissed while balancing the rights of plaintiffs and defendants. The bill would also force those bringing SLAPP suits to pay their opponents’ legal fees if the lawsuit is proven to have abusive intent. Advocacy organizations are also tackling the issue. EarthRights is a member of the <a href="https://protecttheprotest.org/" data-wpel-link="external" target="blank" rel="external noopener noreferrer" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; box-shadow: none;">Protect the Protest</a> coalition, an initiative created in response to the rise of SLAPP suits. “If a corporation can sue a nonprofit organization out of business for criticizing its activities, then that’s extremely dangerous,” Kirk Herbertson, senior policy advisor at EarthRights International, said. About a year after Energy Transfer filed its lawsuit against Two Bulls and others, a district court judge in North Dakota <a href="https://www.desmog.com/2019/02/14/energy-transfer-racketeering-claims-greenpeace-dakota-access-pipeline-dismissed/" data-wpel-link="internal" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; box-sizing: border-box; box-shadow: none;">dismissed the case</a>, denying the RICO claims with prejudice — meaning the company could not refile those claims. RICO claims, which can triple the amount of damages sought in a SLAPP suit, can be financially devastating — even for a larger, well-resourced organization like Greenpeace USA, which was named in the original suit. While Energy Transfer’s RICO claims against the organization have been dismissed, the pipeline company filed a second lawsuit in North Dakota state court, which is scheduled for trial in June 2023. In its current case, which also names Two Bulls as a defendant, Energy Transfer argues that Greenpeace USA conspired with others to defame, trespass, and interfere with business relationships, among many other charges. Energy Transfer did not respond to a request for comment. “Companies are becoming more desperate to silence the voices of their critics”– Deepa PadmanabhaFighting these lawsuits not only takes vast amounts of money, but also time and energy. Padmanabha said that since mid-2016, her career has been almost entirely dedicated to advocating against corporate lawfare — corporations’ use of the legal system to attack opponents — preventing her from engaging more in the dire work needed to prevent climate catastrophe. “The next decade is so critical in our fight against climate change. And if we didn’t have to deal with these lawsuits, we would really be putting every penny and every minute we have into fighting the existential threat of climate change,” Padmanabha said, adding that they are also intended to intimidate and deter individuals and lesser-resourced, smaller groups from speaking out.Karen Savage was working in Massachusetts as a middle-school math teacher when she got hit with a SLAPP suit. In 2013, she and another environmental activist, Cherri Foytlin, wrote an <a href="https://www.huffpost.com/entry/chemrisk-bp-and-purple-st_b_4095131" data-wpel-link="external" target="blank" rel="external noopener noreferrer" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; box-sizing: border-box; box-shadow: none;">unpaid article</a> for the Huffington Post about a so-called independent study from scientific consulting firm ChemRisk. The study had claimed that there was no connection between chemicals released during the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill and the serious health problems reported by cleanup workers and coastal residents in its aftermath. As their reporting revealed, ChemRisk — a company with a long history of working with polluters, including defendant PG&E in the infamous Erin Brockovich case — produced “science” on behalf of BP that the oil major could use to defend itself from liability in court.After the article was published, the Huffington Post <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/12/business/energy-environment/years-after-criticism-of-its-practices-science-consultant-pushes-back.html" data-wpel-link="external" target="blank" rel="external noopener noreferrer" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; box-shadow: none;">received</a> an immediate request from the company to retract it, which they forwarded on to Cherri Foytlin. (In a note on her Facebook page, Foytlin told ChemRisk to “kiss my derriere.”)Foytlin’s Facebook post, along with many other social media posts from the two writers, appeared in a defamation suit filed against them by ChemRisk in New York state. The company claimed their article contained falsehoods — though, according to Savage, ChemRisk couldn’t explain what those falsehoods were — and that as long as it was kept online, the article would “continue to do substantial harm to ChemRisk’s reputation.” “Basically what they wanted to do was shut us up,” Savage told me. “It was an intimidation tactic.” With pro-bono representation, Savage and Foytlin were able to get the suit dismissed in New York. Within two weeks, the company refiled in Massachusetts, where Savage lived. At one point, she said, the company’s lawyers even attempted to serve her in her classroom while she was teaching.Cardno ChemRisk, the parent company of ChemRisk, did not respond to a request for comment.The case was eventually dismissed under the state’s anti-SLAPP laws, and ChemRisk was forced to pay Savage and Foytlin’s attorney’s fees. Savage said she believes that ChemRisk never sued them in Louisiana, where Foytlin lived, because of the three states, Louisiana’s anti-SLAPP laws were the strongest, and the suit would’ve been dismissed faster and with greater consequences for the company. That tactic of searching for the most favorable court, called forum shopping, is something Raskin’s anti-SLAPP statute would address by creating a standard applicable across the United States. At present, <a href="https://anti-slapp.org/your-states-free-speech-protection" data-wpel-link="external" target="blank" rel="external noopener noreferrer" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; box-shadow: none;">32 states</a> and the District of Columbia have anti-SLAPP laws, yet they have varying degrees of efficacy. And while the fate of a federal bill could depend on the outcome of midterm elections, most state anti-SLAPP laws have passed with bipartisan support.Savage — who has since become a journalist and has<a href="https://www.desmog.com/2021/10/12/karen-savage-journalist-louisiana-trespassing-bayou-bridge/" data-wpel-link="internal" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; box-shadow: none;"> written for DeSmog</a> about being arrested by pipeline security while reporting — said she hopes Raskin’s bill would help put an end to this tactic. “If you know the truth, and you’ve got factual backup, and someone comes at you, you can’t back down on that,” Savage said. “The whole reason they’re coming at you is because they also know that you have the truth.”While the fossil fuel industry works to stamp out the speech of environmental advocates on the one hand, it is now arguing that its climate denial is protected speech on the other. At the same time that Raskin held his hearing into the fossil fuel industry’s assault on the First Amendment, the House Natural Resources Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee held a separate hearing to examine how public relations firms market climate disinformation and delay action on behalf of Big Oil. In that hearing, chaired by Rep. Katie Porter (D-CA), Republicans and their witness argued that the committee was attacking the corporations’ right to free speech. “Taken together, the two [hearings] are a perfect illustration of the industry’s First Amendment strategy: expand free speech for corporations, curb it for citizens,” Amy Westervelt recently <a href="https://theintercept.com/2022/09/16/fossil-fuel-industry-climate-free-speech/" data-wpel-link="external" target="blank" rel="external noopener noreferrer" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; box-sizing: border-box; box-shadow: none;">wrote</a> in The Intercept. The fossil fuel industry, she explained, has been developing the argument that its public statements on climate policy are protected speech since the late 1960s, all while working to expand the right of corporations to buy influence over politics behind the scenes.In a paradoxical twist, fossil fuel companies are even attempting to wield existing anti-SLAPP laws to shield themselves from legal accountability. After a Massachusetts court ruled that Attorney General Maura Healey’s climate fraud lawsuit against Exxon could proceed in state court, the oil giant told the state’s supreme court that the case was actually a conspiracy to silence Exxon’s views on climate policy in violation of the state’s anti-SLAPP statute. But so far, the idea that Exxon’s fraud is protected free speech <a href="https://exxonknews.substack.com/p/exxons-free-speech-defense-just-got?s=w" data-wpel-link="external" target="blank" rel="external noopener noreferrer" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; box-sizing: border-box; box-shadow: none;">has not gone over well with judges</a>. “We have seen that the industry is trying to build up this argument around a conspiracy against them, and it’s coming up in things like anti-SLAPP motions in courts. But they have continued to fail in that effort so far,” Herbertson of EarthRights International said. Raskin’s newly proposed federal legislation, he said, is clearly and explicitly designed to be used by real people and organizations that have been victim to SLAPP suits, and will be harder for corporations to use in their own defense.But if you ask Padmanabha of Greenpeace, the industry’s tactics are on thin ice. “There is this recognition and an increasing awareness that speech should not be bought,” she said. “And I think that the [Oversight Civil Rights and Civil Liberties] hearing and the bill that followed it are really just emblematic examples of how these attempts to control the narrative are crumbling.”Emily Sanders writes <a href="http://exxonknews.org/" data-wpel-link="external" target="blank" rel="external noopener noreferrer" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; box-shadow: none;">ExxonKnews</a>, a newsletter covering climate accountability and the oil and gas industry. She is editorial lead at the Center for Climate Integrity, and is based in New York City. This piece was co-published by <a href="https://www.desmog.com/" target="blank" rel="noreferrer noopener" data-wpel-link="internal" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; box-shadow: none;">DeSmog</a> and <a href="http://exxonknews.org/" target="blank" rel="noreferrer noopener external" data-wpel-link="external" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; box-shadow: none;">ExxonKnews</a>, a project of the <a href="https://climateintegrity.org/" data-wpel-link="external" target="blank" rel="external noopener noreferrer" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; box-shadow: none;">Center for Climate Integrity</a>.</div><div style="font-size: small;"></div></div></div><div>
</div><div>=</div><div>
</div><div>format messed up here
<div><div>1stamend2rcvr</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>This Article ws on empirical analysis, history, and economic theory to show that corporations have begun to displace individuals as direct beneficiaries of the First Amendment and to outline an argument that the shift reflects economically harmful rent seeking.</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>The history of corporations, regulation of commercial speech, and First Amendment case law is retold, with an emphasis on the role of constitutional entrepreneur Justice Lewis Powell, who prompted the Supreme Court to invent corporate and commercial speech rights. The chronology shows that First Amendment doctrine long post-dated both pervasive regulation of commercial speech and the rise of the U.S. as the world’s leading economic power – a chronology with implications for originalists, and for policy. Supreme Court and Courts of Appeals decisions are analyzed to quantify the degree to which corporations have displaced individuals as direct beneficiaries of First Amendment rights, and to show that they have done so recently, but with growing speed since Virginia Pharmacy, Bellotti, and Central Hudson</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>Nearly half of First Amendment challenges now benefit business corporations and trade groups, rather than other kinds of organizations or individuals, and the trend-line is up. Such cases commonly constitute a form of corruption: the use of litigation by managers to entrench reregulation in their personal interests at the expense of shareholders, consumers, and employees. In aggregate, they degrade the rule of law, rendering it less predictable, general and clear. This corruption risks significant economic harms in addition to the loss of a republican form of government.</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>very long, cf 2 other neutral/con by kent g?</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>by Haley Sweetland Edwards<</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>In late summer 2011, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) released a new rule requiring businesses to put up an eleven-by-seventeen-inch black-and-white poster notifying employees of their rights under federal law.</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>The poster, fted over the course of a year by a committee of rule makers taking into account more than 7,000 public comments and dozens of meetings with industry groups, labor unions, and “right-to-work” advocacy organizations, emerged as would have been expected: even-keeled and rather bland. Beneath the official NLRB seal and above the phrase “This is an official government poster,” it informed employees that they have the right to join or not to join a union, and that they cannot be coerced into doing either.</div><div>
</div><div>Still, the business community was incensed. Describing the new rule as yet another government intrusion that would do nothing more than “create unemployment,” “weaken the economy,” and cause “immediate, irreparable harm for which no adequate remedy at law exists,” a coalition of industry groups led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) launched a firestorm of litigation, eventually suing the agency in two federal appellate courts.</div><div>
</div><div>On its face, this little ma isn’t all that surprising. For the past decade or so, industry groups have made a habit of waging war in the form of endless litigation on regulatory agencies, hoping to slow the rule-making process, in agency resources, and, when possible, get final rules thrown out. In most cases, these lawsuits play out in the weedy battleground of administrative law, where lawyers tussle over economic analyses or some minutiae within the Administrative Procedure Act. But this time was different.</div><div>
</div><div>This time, NAM, the biggest trade group in the country, was arguing that by forcing companies to “engage in speech they would not otherwise issue,” the government was “in violation of their rights under the First Amendment.”</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>"And that, dear readers, is a pretty ballsy claim. For one, it’s a little like dealing with your gopher problem by firebombing the neighborhood. By claiming that the government cannot, under the Constitution, compel companies to “engage in speech they would not otherwise issue,” NAM is essentially undercutting nearly all economic regulation. “If that seems alarmist, it’s not,” wrote University of Tulsa law professor Tamara Piety, the author of Brandishing the First Amendment. In the legal context, the current definition of “speech” is famously fuzzy and could, depending on the situation, include very nearly everything a company does, from advertising and performing financial transactions to transferring data and utilizing computer algorithms. So if NAM’s claim were true, it’s very possible that the government couldn’t regulate any of those activities. “If you cannot regulate commercial speech,” Piety wrote, “you cannot regulate commerce, period</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>The other reason it’s such a ballsy claim is simply that until very recently, it would have been laughed out of court. Most jurisprudence from at least the past eighty or so years backs up the idea that the government, acting in the interest of the greater public, has the authority to force companies to convey certain non-ideological, government-mandated messages, so long as it’s clear that it’s the government “speaking,” not the company. Those messages can take the form of posters or warning labels, or those little placards in bathrooms reminding employees to wash their hands, or some other form of government-mandated “fine print” informing consumers, investors, shareholders, employees, or job seekers about risks or rights or government protections</div><div>
</div><div>;">So with that, hold on to your socks. In September 2012, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals in the D.C. Circuit, made up of A. Raymond Randolph and Karen Henderson, both appointed by George H. W. Bush, and Janice Rogers Brown, a George W. Bush appointee, heard the case. And in May last year, they published their final decision, striking down the NLRB’s rule—on First Amendment and statutory free speech grounds.</div><div>">It did not matter that the “speech” in question here was a non-ideological poster clearly stating U.S. law, the judges said. And it did not matter that the rule placed no other constraints on companies’ speech or on the free flow of information. (The mere act of compelling a company to “host or accommodate another speaker’s message” was enough to violate its free speech, according to the opinion.) And it did not matter that, in 2003, this same court—and the same judge, Randolph!—had confirmed the legality of President George W. Bush’s executive order requiring federal contractors to put up explicitly anti-union posters in their workplaces on the grounds that “[a]n employer’s right to silence is sharply constrained in the labor context and leaves it subject to a variety of burdens to post notices of rights and risks.”</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>It is tempting, of course, to simply write off this decision; to chock it up to the fact that it had to do with organized labor, an incendiary topic these days, or that it was decided by a very conservative panel on a very conservative court. After all, Republican senators repeatedly filibustered Obama nominees to precisely this court, leading Democrats last November to end filibusters for all nominees except those for the Supreme Court. And indeed, ideology</div><div>
</div><div>As crazy as this decision was, as ill-founded and sweeping in its implications for government regulations going forward, it’s not exactly an outlier. In the past decade, both the U.S. Supreme Court and lower federal courts have begun, with increasing frequency, to strike down rules and sometimes entire laws, on the grounds that they infringe on companies’ First Amendment rights to free speech and expression.</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>This spring, for example, the Supreme Court will hear a case brought by the Christian-owned national craft supply chain, Hobby Lobby, claiming that the mandate in Obamacare requiring corporations to pay for some of their employees’ contraception is a violation of the company’s First Amendment right of religious expression</div><div>
</div><div>;">In another pending case, the Department of Justice filed a suit alleging that the credit rating agency Standard & Poor’s behaved fraudulently in giving high, and often AAA, ratings to toxic securities before the housing collapse. S&P is claiming that the DOJ’s case is retaliatory and therefore a violation of its First Amendment rights. As Columbia law professor Tim Wu put it in the New Republic last year, it’s tempting to call industry’s use of the First Amendment “the new nuclear option for undermining regulation, except that its deployment is shockingly routine.</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>The mother of all corporate First Amendment cases is, of course, Citizens United, in which the Supreme Court held in 2010 that any law constraining corporate political expenditures was a violation of companies’ rights to free speech. But it neither began nor ended there</div><div>
</div><div>Just a year after that precedent-contorting decision, the Supremes scrapped a Vermont state law on similar grounds. The law restricted data miners from selling pharmacy records to pharmaceutical companies, which were, in turn, using that data to target certain doctors for their sales pitches. The Vermont law was designed to protect doctors’ privacy and control health care costs, but the Court decided those weren’t compelling enough state interests to warrant violating the companies’ First Amendment-protected commercial speech. It was one of those decisions, a constitutional law professor told me, that was “like getting whacked by a two-by-four: what the hell? Where did that come from?”</div><div>There have been dozens more cases like it. Over the past few years, corporations like Nike, Verizon, Google, and the big credit ratings agencies like S&P and Moody’s have been crafting innovative new First Amendment defenses to parry all sorts of “government intrusions,” from antitrust suits to false advertising.</div><div>
</div><div>Last summer, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce attacked two new Securities and Exchange Commission rules mandated by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act that required publicly traded international corporations, including Exxon and Chevron, to disclose certain information to the public (such as how much they were paying host countries for their extraction rights). Forcing those companies to speak, the Chamber argued, was a violation of their First Amendment-protected commercial speech. The Chamber and Business Roundtable have appealed one of those cases to the D.C. Court of Appeals, which will hear it this month</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>;">The same court will also hear another case this month from the American Meat Institute, representing behemoth meat-packers like Tyson and Cargill, which is taking a similar tack in an attempt to kill a Department of Agriculture rule mandated by consumer protection requirements in the 2002 Farm Bill. It requires meat-packers to label their products indicating in what country the animal, or animals, in their meat had been born, raised, and slaughtered. Forcing companies to use those labels, the meat-packers say, is equivalent to making them engage in speech they would not otherwise issue and is therefore a violation of their First Amendment-protected commercial speech.</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>While none of these cases is by itself a game changer, the collective weight of all of them—combined with sweeping decisions, like the one in the recent NLRB case—is enough to begin to bend legal precedent in favor of industry. Frederick Schauer, who was a First Amendment scholar at Harvard for nearly two decades and is now a professor of law at the University of Virginia School of Law,;"> coined the term “First Amendment opportunism” more than a decade ago to describe precisely this trend. “It used to be that if a lawyer claimed free speech in most of the cases we’re seeing now, the judge would have looked at him and said, ‘Counselor, you can’t be serious,’” Schauer told me. “But now you see them being taken seriously. That’s a very big battle they’ve already won.”</div><div>
</div><div>And if industry goes on to win the war—if they collect a body of First Amendment case law establishing that corporations’ First Amendment-protected speech cannot reasonably be fettered by economic regulation—our society will be in a world of hurt. There will be no corporate transparency whatsoever. No way to enforce workers’ rights. No way to compel companies to protect investors or shareholders. And all regulations that require corporate disclosure, including most financial regulations, will cease to exist in any meaningful way.</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>And if you don’t believe me, how about the late ;">William Rehnquist? After the Supreme Court first granted that commercial speech considerations can trump state law in the 1970s, the famously conservative Supreme Court justice described a similar vision in his dissent, recalling, with a shudder, the “bygone era of Lochner v. New York.” Named for a case in which the Supreme Court overturned a law limiting the number of hours bakers could be forced to work, the Lochner Era describes a period from the Gilded Age to the Great Depression characterized by unchecked corporate power, untouchable monopolists, very few worker or consumer rights, rampant environmental degradation, and extreme inequality.</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>One of the primary reasons those social conditions persisted for so long was because of a fiercely libertarian intellectual culture in many federal courts at the time, and especially the U.S. Supreme Court, which, during a fifty-year period, struck down all or part of more than 200 state and federal laws, including those outlawing child labor, banning sweatshops, and establishing a minimum wage and fair working hours. In the Lochner Era, big industry groups and their allies on the Court wielded the notion of “freedom of contract”—any regulation that abridged it was chucked.;"> Today, the notion of “freedom of speech” is being used virtually the same way, just as Rehnquist worried it might be. Any rule or law that abridges a company’s claims to First Amendment-protected speech is now vulnerable to attack</div><div>Many members of the younger, more radical generation of conservative lawyers and judges now working in the lower federal courts and the U.S. Supreme Court dismiss their conservative forebears’ calls for judicial restraint; Rehnquist’s quaint worries are seen as outmoded by conservative activists today. They instead regard the First Amendment as one of the most powerful weapons in the battle to achieve “economic liberty.” And they are joined in their efforts by a cadre of eminent liberals who, having made their name in the 1970s arguing for the inviolability of the First Amendment under any circumstances, have been unwilling to unpack the flawed logic that got us here to begin with, and are now defending industry’s claims to free speech, lending both credibility and respectability to an argument powerful enough to dismantle the entire regulatory state.</div><div><a class="" /></div><div><a class="">
</a></div><div><a class="">
</a></div><div><a class="">
</a></div><div><a class="">;">The First Amendment dictates that “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech.” It makes no mention of corporations, commercial transactions, or advertising, but nor does it name dissidents, or anarchists, or seditious radicals of any stripe, and for a long time, justices, judges, lawyers, and jurists were more or less in agreement that the First Amendment didn’t protect any of those things. In fact, it wasn’t until about eighty years ago that liberal judges and justices like Oliver Wendell Holmes and Louis Brandeis began, in isolated cases, to use the broad language of “free speech” to protect religious minorities and marginalized groups like Jehovah’s Witnesses and labor rights activists.</a></div><div><a class="" /></div><div><a class="">
</a></div><div><a class="">Our modern imagination of the First Amendment as a robust, powerful, content-blind doctrine didn’t even really hit the scene until about fifty years ago, in the 1960s and ’70s, when the definition of “speech” began to stretch and morph, becoming both more generous and more distorted in its scope. It was then that liberal Americans and the broader legal establishment began to embrace for the first time the rather radical notion that the First Amendment protects all political speech, regardless of who said it, or what was said. Almost overnight, acts that would have been considered seditious, blasphemous, or profane, and therefore jailable offenses just a generation before, became, by the late ’70s, cultural touchstones, symbols of an age defined by radical individualism. Under the banner of the First Amendment, a teenager could wear a jacket printed with the words “Fuck the ft”; a man could burn the American flag; the New York Times could print top-secret government records that would help bring down a president.</a></div><div><a class="" /></div><div><a class="">
</a></div><div><a class="">By the end of the ’70s, it was written squarely into First Amendment case law that, aside from a handful of exceptions for libel, slander, and hate speech, no government—federal, state, or local—could pass a law that abridged citizens’ political speech, no matter how unpopular or despicable the speaker, no matter how unsavory his message. ;">This idea was sanctified in American lore in 1977, when the American Civil Liberties Union stepped in to defend the Nazis’ First Amendment right to parade through the predominately Jewish streets of Skokie, Illinois.</a></div><div><a class="" /></div><div><a class="">
</a></div><div><a class="">;">That’s generally where our high school textbooks stop. But a less-well-known redefinition of the First Amendment was beginning to appear at the same time. In the early ’70s, intellectual contrarians like Martin Redish, ingenious lawyers working for businesses and corporations, and liberal purists, who distrusted any constraints on any speech, began to promote in legal journals and the occasional lawsuit the idea that companies’ advertisements and marketing campaigns ought to count as “speech,” too. Conservative jurists like Robert Bork dismissed these ideas as wrongheaded and dangerous, writing that “the protection of the First Amendment must be cut off when it reaches the outer limits of political speech.” And for years, most legal experts shared Bork’s view. The notion that commercial entities possessed the ability to “speak,” much less that such “speech” should be afforded constitutional rights, was laughable.</a></div><div><a class="" /></div><div><a class="">
</a></div><div><a class="">
</a></div><div><a class="">;">
</a></div><div><a class="" /></div><div><a class="">
</a></div><div><a class="">
</a></div><div><a class="">;">But again, that changed almost overnight. In 1975, the consumer group Public Citizen, then still controlled by Ralph Nader, sued the state of Virginia over a law restricting pharmacies from advertising the price of their drugs. In that now-famous case, known as Virginia Pharmacy, Public Citizen argued that since consumers could benefit from “hearing” that speech—they could get a better deal by comparing pharmacies’ prices—the government should not be allowed to limit such speech without a “compelling state interest.” It’s important here to note that Public Citizen was arguing that commercial speech is deserving of protection only insofar as it’s valuable to the public. But the Supreme Court’s decision in 1976, in which it sided with Public Citizen and struck down the Virginia law, made a much larger point. It established, first, that a commercial entity can be legally defined as a “speaker” with limited claims to free speech, and second, that even “purely economic” speech, like advertising and marketing, enjoys some First Amendment protections.</a></div><div><a class="class" /></div><div><a class="class">
</a></div><div><a class="class">
</a></div><div><a class="class">Having flown us up to 10,000 feet and opened the hatch, however, the justices forgot to show us how to work the parachutes. “[W]e of course do not hold that [commercial speech] can never be regulated in any way,” wrote Justice Harry Blackmun for the majority. “Some forms of commercial speech regulation are surely permissible.” In other words: commercial entities’ economic speech is protected, but at a lower standard of scrutiny than citizens’ political speech. What, exactly, was that “lower standard of scrutiny”? It was left unsaid.</a></div><div><a cla="cla" /></div><div><a cla="cla">
</a></div><div><a cla="cla">
</a></div><div><a cla="cla">;">While liberals celebrated the decision as a win for consumer rights, conservatives like Rehnquist saw the writing on the wall. “The logical consequences of the Court’s decision in this case, a decision which elevates commercial intercourse … to the same place as had been previously reserved for the free marketplace of ideas, are far reaching indeed,” he wrote in a dissenting opinion.</a></div><div><a class="" /></div><div><a class="">
</a></div><div><a class="">The years that followed would bear out his warnings as the legal establishment fumbled with the parachute strings. A handful of cases in the 1980s attempted to address the questions that the Supreme Court had left unanswered: What is the definition of commercial speech? What forms of commercial speech regulation are permissible? And under what circumstances can commercial speech be abridged? A tangled and sometimes contradictory “doctrine of commercial speech” emerged, which attempted to set down criteria under which the government can regulate commercial speech—for instance, if the regulation is “narrowly tailored” to address a “substantial” government interest—and under which companies have the right “not to divulge accurate information.” But these criteria and definitions have been Silly Putty in the hands of clever industry lawyers, stretched and molded over the years to fit their needs.</a></div><div><a class="" /></div><div><a class="">
</a></div><div>
</div><div><a class="">
</a></div><div><a class="">
</a></div><div><a class="">;">Take, for example, the very definition of “commercial speech.” In the Virginia Pharmacy opinion, Blackmun wrote almost exclusively about advertising and other marketing materials designed for consumers. But in subsequent years, lawyers have stretched that definition, sometimes successfully, to include basically anything whatsoever that involves information—a very, very broad umbrella in today’s information economy—including the act of accessing or transferring digital data. That 2011 Supreme Court decision striking down the Vermont law barring data miners from selling information to pharmaceutical companies hinged on the assumption that the act of purchasing and utilizing digital records to facilitate a marketing strategy fell under the auspices of First Amendment-protected commercial speech. A dismayed Justice Stephen Breyer asked in his dissent why the Court had not given “significant weight to legitimate commercial regulatory objectives,” as precedent demanded. “The far stricter, specially ‘heightened’ First Amendment standards … are out of place here.”</a></div><div><a class="">
</a></div><div><a class="">In the midst of this intellectual tumult in the mid-’70s, another, even more powerful, idea began to take root. If commercial entities’ economic speech is protected by the First Amendment, but at a lower standard of scrutiny, and citizens’ political speech is protected by the First Amendment, at the highest standard of scrutiny, then what would happen if a commercial entity issued political speech? Would that get the highest standard of scrutiny, too?</a></div><div><a class="" /></div><div><a class="">
</a></div><div><a class="">
</a></div><div><a class="">This question bubbled all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court in 1978. A few years before, Massachusetts had passed a law barring companies from spending money to sway public referenda, unless their business was directly affected. The First National Bank of Boston sued Massachusetts Attorney General Francis Bellotti, arguing that spending money was a corporations’ form of political speech, and therefore protected by the First Amendment at the highest standard of scrutiny. The Supreme Court agreed: prohibiting corporate spending on political ends indeed violates corporations’ “protected speech in a manner unjustified by a compelling state interest.” The decision threw legal theorists into a tizzy. If the First Amendment treats corporations’ political speech the same way it treats citizens’ political speech, does that make corporations citizens? And if so, do corporations get the same rights as citizens? Justice Lewis Powell, writing for the majority in the Bellotti decision, sidestepped that burning question: it doesn’t matter “whether corporations have First Amendment rights and, if so, whether they are coextensive with those of natural persons,” he wrote. The only question that matters is whether speech “that the First Amendment was meant to protect” is being abridged. In other words, it was all about the speech itself. Political speech, no matter who—or what!—the speaker was, or what was said, enjoys the fullest First Amendment protections, the Court decided.</a></div><div><a class="" /></div><div><a class="">
</a></div><div><a class="">
</a></div><div><a class="">;">Three decades later, Justice Anthony Kennedy would cite the Bellotti case as precedent twenty-four times in the Citizens United opinion, claiming that “the Government lacks the power to restrict political speech based on the speaker’s corporate identity.” But at the time, traditional conservatives were appalled by the idea that corporations and other commercial entities would be afforded the same rights as people when it came to political speech. Rehnquist argued that since the government allows corporations to exist by providing them with “special privileges or immunities different from those of natural persons,” it’s only logical that those entities would “be subject to like regulation.” The government, furthermore, allows corporations to exist so that they may perform a circumscribed economic purpose, not so that they can become political participants, he wrote. “[L]iberties of political expression are not at all necessary to effectuate the purposes for which States permit commercial corporations to exist.”</a></div><div><a class="" /></div><div><a class="">
</a></div><div><a class="">Yet while traditional conservatives fulminated, a younger generation of conservatives was outright celebratory. Unlike their elders, these more radical conservatives “saw a link between the First Amendment and the larger project of restoring the ‘economic liberty’ that they believed had been eroding since the New Deal,” wrote Columbia law professor Wu. By granting complete, unlimited, inviolable protections to commercial entities’ political speech, Bellotti matically elevated the stature of corporations under the First Amendment.</a></div><div><a class="">
</a></div><div><a class="">;"> If liberals insisted on brandishing the First Amendment to protect anarchists and communists, they reasoned, why couldn’t they could use it to protect businesses and restrict government interference in the economy? And that is more or less exactly what they did. Beginning in the early 1970s, a new crop of conservative think tanks, clubs, and legal funds, like the Pacific Legal Foundation, the Heritage Foundation, and what later became the CATO Institute, funded by the Koch brothers, formed alliances with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other powerful trade groups, in an effort to push an anti-regulatory, pro-business agenda, with expanded corporate free speech rights as a key weapon.</a></div><div><a class="">
</a></div><div><a class="">This revolution was aided in no small part by many in the liberal establishment, who, even today, continue to support the Bellotti decision on the grounds that it was framed as an anti-discriminatory measure: all political speech by all speakers enjoyed First Amendment protection—even if the speaker was a bank or a corporation. Many of the traditionally liberal First Amendment lawyers, like Floyd Abrams, Laurence Tribe, and Walter Dellinger, who made their names in the ’70s as defenders of the oppressed, have in more recent years dedicated themselves to advancing and defending this idea—that the identity, even the corporate identity, of a speaker cannot be a determining factor of whether or not speech is regulated. ;">As a result, they have, along with organizations like the ACLU, lent their talents, as well their credibility and respectability, to corporations’ First Amendment attacks, often finding themselves among unlikely allies, like the National Rifle Association, Monsanto, and Exxon.</a></div><div><a class="">
</a></div><div><a class="">Abrams, for example, who earned his reputation defending the New York Times in the Pentagon Papers case, later wrote the brief in support of Mitch McConnell in Citizens United and, in 2012, successfully argued on behalf of the tobacco industry. In that case, the tobacco industry had claimed that a Food and Drug Administration rule, mandated by the 2009 Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, that required newer, more graphic warning labels on cigarette packaging was a violation of companies’ First Amendment-protected speech. Abrams now represents the massive credit rating agency Standard & Poor’s, which has argued, repeatedly and successfully, that its irresponsible, dangerous, and overly optimistic ratings are just speech—the “world’s shortest editorials,” as one legal scholar put it—and that the company therefore cannot be held responsible for using those ratings to line its own pockets while fleecing investors of billions of dollars and contributing to the collapse of the housing market.</a></div><div><a class="">
</a></div><div><a class="">
</a></div><div><a class="">By the early 2000s, First Amendment jurisprudence had become a vague, messy, and sometimes-contradictory mess, vulnerable to exploitation. On the commercial speech side, it was clear that the First Amendment provided some limited protections to companies, but it wasn’t clear what activities were included under the definition of commercial speech, or where that “lower standard of scrutiny” began or ended. On the political speech side, the Supreme Court had clearly ruled that the First Amendment provided total protection at the “highest standard of scrutiny” to all speakers, including corporations, but it wasn’t clear what speech should be considered political, or what would happen in circumstances in which a company’s political and economic speech overlapped. And in the area of compelled speech—requiring companies to disclose certain information, say, or refrain from making false claims—things were even murkier.</a></div><div><a class="">
</a></div><div><a class="">Take, for example, the recent cases brought against the government by Hobby Lobby, a Christian-owned national craft supply chain with 578 stores and tens of thousands of employees across the country. Hobby Lobby argues that the mandate in Obamacare requiring businesses of a certain size to pay for their employees’ contraception violates the company’s First Amendment-protected rights of religious expression. The company’s owners do not believe personally in using certain types of contraception. While that case is slightly different since it involves First Amendment protections of religious expression, rather than speech, much of the same case law applies. ;">In October, the U.S. Court of Appeals in the Tenth Circuit, based in Colorado, cited the First Amendment precedent of Citizens United to decide in favor of Hobby Lobby, leaving its thousands of employees, including those who do not share the religious beliefs of their employers, out of luck. “We see no reason the Supreme Court would recognize constitutional protection for a corporation’s political expression but not its religious expression,” wrote Judge Timothy M. Tymkovich for the majority. The U.S. Supreme Court will hear the case this year.</a></div><div><a class="">
</a></div><div><a class="">
</a></div><div><a class="">;">Or for another example, consider the aftermath of the Citizens United decision in 2010. Perhaps in an effort to quell fears, Justice Kennedy, writing for the majority, noted that while the Court held that laws restricting commercial entities’ expenditures on political messages violated their First Amendment-protected speech, he very pointedly left the door open for Congress to pass laws compelling commercial entities to disclose their expenditures. “Citizens and shareholders” must be able to “make informed decisions and give proper weight to different speakers and messages,” he wrote. It sounded reasonable at the time. After all, if we can’t restrict corporate expenditures, at least we can see how much they’re spending on what, right?</a></div><div><a class="">
</a></div><div><a class="">;">Not so fast. In the months and years since that decision, corporations and industry groups have been fighting tooth and nail any laws or regulations that would require commercial entities to disclose their political expenditures on the grounds that—drum roll, please!—any such action would infringe on commercial entities’ First Amendment-protected political speech. They argue that such disclosure might subject them to criticism for making the expenditures, which would, in turn, have a “chilling effect” on their ability to spend—er, “speak”—in the future. Just as the government cannot force a citizen to speak or not speak about his political beliefs, they argue, the government cannot force a corporation to disclose its political donations either. Welcome to the NFL.</a></div><div><a class="" /></div><div><a class="">
</a></div><div><a class="">It helps to think of the current state of First Amendment jurisprudence the same way you might think of a sci-fi novel. Within its own self-contained universe, organized according to its own laws and assumptions, everything makes logical sense. Kennedy, Abrams, the ACLU, and all the rest of those “purists” make three main assumptions. First, they assume that the information issued by a corporation is “speech” and that the corporation itself should be considered a “speaker.” Second, they assume that all political speech, no matter what is said, enjoys the full protections of the First Amendment. And third, they assume that we cannot discriminate against any political speech regardless of the speaker’s identity. On the basis of those three assumptions, their conclusion is logically inevitable: political speech issued by a corporate speaker enjoys the full protections of the First Amendment.</a></div><div><a class="" /></div><div><a class="">
</a></div><div><a class="">
</a></div><div><a class="">But there’s one fatal problem with that little proof: there’s no reason why the first premise—that information issued by a corporation qualifies as “speech”—should pass the test of common sense. As Rehnquist, Bork, and other old-guard conservatives noted decades ago, a corporation is a legal entity that exists because our laws allow it to exist, so that it may perform an economic purpose. It issues information to consumers and the public so that it might advance that economic purpose. That seems like a very, very different thing than a natural person, who is not a legal entity, and exists regardless of the will of the government, speaking about beliefs and convictions. Why not agree that entities that are not alive create information, while only people create speech?</a></div><div><a class="" /></div><div><a class="">
</a></div><div><a class="">It’s at this stage in the conversation that the First Amendment purists, having worked themselves into a bit of a froth, make three points. First, they argue that if we limit the definition of speech or wade into the muck of deciding who gets to be a “speaker” under the law and who does not, then we position ourselves on a slippery slope: we are in danger of creating loopholes that allow the First Amendment to protect one type of speaker but not another. Without total absolutism, wherein all speech, by all speakers is protected, they argue, we risk creating a world in which, say, Muslims are silenced just because they’re Muslims, or anarchists are denied free speech just because they’re anarchists. It is, admittedly, a scary prospect, but in reality, it seems that we are in no danger at all of that actually happening. Would it not be perfectly possible to guarantee, absolutely, free speech rights for every single solitary American—full stop, no exceptions!—without also agreeing to guarantee those rights to corporations? If the line is wn between people and non-people, that slippery slope seems pretty sticky to me.</a></div><div><a class="" /></div><div><a class="">
</a></div><div><a class="">
</a></div><div>
</div><div><a class="">
</a></div><div><a class="">The second point the purists raise is what happens when people, who individually enjoy full First Amendment protections, arrange themselves into a group and form legal entities, like corporations, unions, or nonprofits. And the answer, again, seems fairly simple. After all, the government already treats legal entities differently than it treats people. Legal entities are taxed differently, they’re afforded different privileges, and they’re subject to different duties, punishments, and rights. Legal entities cannot be jailed. They cannot plead the Fifth so as not to perjure themselves. They can only be held to limited liability for their financial mistakes. So, in the same way that the law already treats a legal entity differently than it treats a person, so too should it treat the information issued (and cash spent) by a legal entity differently than it treats the speech created (and cash spent) by a person.</a></div><div><a class="" /></div><div><a class="">
</a></div><div><a class="">
</a></div><div><a class="">;">The third point the purists make is that since many newspapers and media outlets are corporations, any jurisprudence that does not consider corporations’ speech to be protected by the First Amendment threatens the freedom of the press. Again, that sounds scary, but it seems that there is no reason that must be the case. As Stanford law professor Michael McConnell points out,;"> the First Amendment specifically names the “press” as worthy of its protections, and our laws reflect that, carefully defining and affording protections to editorial activities. “No one disputes that corporations, such as the New York Times Company, can editorialize during an election, and other groups performing the press function have the same right, even if they are not part of the traditional news media industry,” he wrote. But there is no reason to assume that the First Amendment’s press clause should apply to activities, like “campaign contributions, which are not an exercise of the freedom of the press.”</a></div><div><a class="" /></div><div><a class="">
</a></div><div><a class="">
</a></div><div><a class="">And that, of course, leads to the most important point of all. Shouldn’t our democratically elected governments—local, state, and federal—have the power to police commerce within their jurisdictions? That doesn’t mean that corporations, unions, or nonprofits would be unable to issue commercial or political information. They would simply have to fight, alongside the citizens who benefit from that information, for favorable laws in the political arena, lobbying elected officials and regulators, as they do now. What they wouldn’t be able to do is use the courts, marshalling a supposed constitutional right to circumvent the political process.</a></div><div><a class="" /></div><div><a class="">
</a></div><div>
</div><div><a class="">
</a></div><div><a class="">Of course, the only way to ensure that these commonsense lines between people and legal entities get rewn is for political leaders to first understand the threat posed by runaway commercial speech rights, and then to put on the bench judges who do, too—and soon. Legal precedent is powerful and consequential, but it can, as we’ve seen, evolve or devolve over time, depending on who is making the calls.</a></div><div><a class="" /></div><div><a class="">
</a></div><div><a class="">Obama’s ability to shift the Court has been immeasurably strengthened by the Senate’s decision this past fall to end the filibuster for judicial appointments. He should use that power decisively and quickly. But that’s not the same as moving the Court “to the left,” at least on this issue. Rather, what’s needed are jurists dubious of both liberal First Amendment purism and radical corporate libertarianism. What’s needed are moderate judges willing to admit that when it comes to commercial information, old-guard conservatives like Rehnquist were right, and so too was Justice John Marshall, when he wrote in 1819, “A corporation is an artificial being, invisible, intangible, and existing only in contemplation of law.”</a></div><div><a class="" /></div><div><a class="">
</a></div><div><a class="">
</a></div><div><a class="">[sadly gorsuch, brett k and moscow mitch ct packing]</a></div><div><a class="" /></div><div><a class="">
</a></div><div><a class="">
</a></div><div><a class="">
</a></div><div><a class="">
</a></div><div><a class="">
</a></div><div><a class="">* rec'd</a></div><div><a class="" h="h" px="px"></a><a class="" h="h" px="px">contrast:</a><a class="" h="h" px="px">
</a><a class="" h="h" px="px">Exxon Tries To Bury Climate Documents By Claiming First ...</a><a class="" h="h" px="px">
</a><a class="" h="h" px="px">www.huffingtonpost.com/.../exxon-first-amendment_us_571662c6e4b0060ccda46d6...</a><a class="" h="h" px="px">Apr 19, 2016 - Exxon's invocation of the First Amendment is fairly unusual for a ... But others have tried to defend the oil company's free speech rights on this ...</a><a class="" h="h" px="px">First Amendment Freedoms Must Be Protected | The Daily Caller</a><a class="" h="h" px="px">
</a><a class="" h="h" px="px">dailycaller.com/.../texas-is-fighting-back-against-the-activist-ags-dangerous-climate-su...</a><a class="" h="h" px="px">Jun 2, 2016 - A view of the Exxon Mobil refinery in Baytown, Texas, in this ... Texas AG's Decision To Fight In Favor Of ExxonMobile's Constitutional Rights?</a><a class="" h="h" px="px">
</a><a class="" h="h" px="px">https://dailycaller.com/2016/06/02/texas-is-fighting-back-against-the-activist-ags-dangerous-climate-subpoena/</a><a class="" h="h" px="px">
</a><a class="" h="h" px="px">Ken PAXTON</a><a class="" h="h" px="px">TEXAS ATTORNEY GENERAL</a><a class="" h="h" px="px">June 02, 2016</a><a class="" h="h" px="px">While the debate over climate change has been, at times, contentious and even mean-spirited, it’s never been criminalized.</a><a class="" h="h" px="px">Until now.</a><a class="" h="h" px="px">Recently, Claude Earl Walker, the attorney general for the U.S. Virgin Islands, issued a criminal subpoena to ExxonMobil in Texas. What crime are they investigating? Thoughts. Walker is investigating Exxon’s expressed doubts on the issue of climate change and those who they communicated with about this questionable subject.  </a><a class="" h="h" px="px">Now, anyone who has expressed such thoughts has increasingly found themselves under vocal assault from politicians, federal funding agencies, universities, professional societies, and journalists. But this may be the most shocking assault yet. A government official is actually using his prosecutorial power to attack a company for nothing more than expressing an opinion that’s unpopular with the environmental left.</a><a class="" h="h" px="px">That is why my office and the Alabama Attorney General have joined ExxonMobil in an effort to have this abusive and unconstitutional subpoena thrown out of court.</a><a class="" h="h" px="px">This is the strongest demonstration yet of the almost-religious zeal with which climate change proponents attack those with whom they disagree, and how little the First Amendment freedoms mean to people with such an agenda. During a press conference announcing the investigation, Walker – along with a coalition of other environmentally activist AGs – said that his office has launched an investigation into a company whose “product is destroying the earth.”  </a><a class="" h="h" px="px">Those words reveal the true motive behind this effort. Walker and the environmental activists he is beholden to are not neutral parties investigating possible wrongdoing. They are zealots on the hunt for a trophy.</a><a class="" h="h" px="px">Today, Walker is targeting ExxonMobil. But the coalition of activist Attorneys General that are operating alongside him suggests that the campaign for absolute orthodoxy on climate change could go national at any time, and who knows who could be next.</a><a class="" h="h" px="px">Unlike being criticized in the media or on college campuses, this isn’t merely an unfair annoyance. Companies being targeted will have to spend substantial financial resources to defend themselves, which serves as a massive de facto “fine” before any wrongdoing is even demonstrated. And that’s money that could otherwise go toward paying higher wages, hiring more employees, and investing more in the company.  </a><a class="" h="h" px="px">In the subpoena, Walker demands four decades worth of ExxonMobil records, which is the very definition of a massive fishing expedition. They’re hoping to bring in as much information as possible so they can pore over it later in the hopes of finding somebody at ExxonMobil who did something wrong at some point in the company’s history — perhaps as far back as the Ford Administration.</a><a class="" h="h" px="px">Walker has floated a “theory” that the company’s speech somehow amounted to a criminal racketeering violation. In reality, this is an obvious attempt to criminalize views on one side of a debate, in flagrant disregard of the First Amendment.</a><a class="" h="h" px="px">;">Once we cross the line into prosecuting people for what they believe, we will have abandoned one of America’s founding principles. Our First Amendment freedoms must be protected. </a><a class="" h="h" px="px"></a><a class="" h="h" px="px">=</a><div class="r" style="margin: 0px; line-height: 1.54; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><a class="" h="h" px="px"></a><a href="https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2016/06/exxon-ken-paxton-first-amendment/" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2016/06/exxon-ken-paxton-first-amendment/&ved=2ahUKEwif_MHKt-jAhUIGKwKHbRUB0wQFjAIegQIBxAB" style="cursor: pointer; text-decoration-line: none;" /><h3 class="LC20lb" style="font-weight: normal; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; display: inline-block; line-height: 1.33;"><a href="https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2016/06/exxon-ken-paxton-first-amendment/" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2016/06/exxon-ken-paxton-first-amendment/&ved=2ahUKEwif_MHKt-jAhUIGKwKHbRUB0wQFjAIegQIBxAB" style="cursor: pointer; text-decoration-line: none;"></a><a href="https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2016/06/exxon-ken-paxton-first-amendment/" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2016/06/exxon-ken-paxton-first-amendment/&ved=2ahUKEwif_MHKt-jAhUIGKwKHbRUB0wQFjAIegQIBxAB" style="cursor: pointer; text-decoration-line: none;"></a><a href="https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2016/06/exxon-ken-paxton-first-amendment/" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2016/06/exxon-ken-paxton-first-amendment/&ved=2ahUKEwif_MHKt-jAhUIGKwKHbRUB0wQFjAIegQIBxAB" style="cursor: pointer; text-decoration-line: none;"></a><a href="https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2016/06/exxon-ken-paxton-first-amendment/" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2016/06/exxon-ken-paxton-first-amendment/&ved=2ahUKEwif_MHKt-jAhUIGKwKHbRUB0wQFjAIegQIBxAB" style="cursor: pointer; text-decoration-line: none;"></a><a href="https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2016/06/exxon-ken-paxton-first-amendment/" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2016/06/exxon-ken-paxton-first-amendment/&ved=2ahUKEwif_MHKt-jAhUIGKwKHbRUB0wQFjAIegQIBxAB" style="cursor: pointer; text-decoration-line: none;"></a><a href="https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2016/06/exxon-ken-paxton-first-amendment/" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2016/06/exxon-ken-paxton-first-amendment/&ved=2ahUKEwif_MHKt-jAhUIGKwKHbRUB0wQFjAIegQIBxAB" style="cursor: pointer; text-decoration-line: none;"></a><a href="https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2016/06/exxon-ken-paxton-first-amendment/" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2016/06/exxon-ken-paxton-first-amendment/&ved=2ahUKEwif_MHKt-jAhUIGKwKHbRUB0wQFjAIegQIBxAB" style="cursor: pointer; text-decoration-line: none;"></a><a href="https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2016/06/exxon-ken-paxton-first-amendment/" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2016/06/exxon-ken-paxton-first-amendment/&ved=2ahUKEwif_MHKt-jAhUIGKwKHbRUB0wQFjAIegQIBxAB" style="cursor: pointer; text-decoration-line: none;"></a><a href="https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2016/06/exxon-ken-paxton-first-amendment/" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2016/06/exxon-ken-paxton-first-amendment/&ved=2ahUKEwif_MHKt-jAhUIGKwKHbRUB0wQFjAIegQIBxAB" style="cursor: pointer; text-decoration-line: none;" /><a href="https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2016/06/exxon-ken-paxton-first-amendment/" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2016/06/exxon-ken-paxton-first-amendment/&ved=2ahUKEwif_MHKt-jAhUIGKwKHbRUB0wQFjAIegQIBxAB" style="cursor: pointer; text-decoration-line: none;" /><a href="https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2016/06/exxon-ken-paxton-first-amendment/" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2016/06/exxon-ken-paxton-first-amendment/&ved=2ahUKEwif_MHKt-jAhUIGKwKHbRUB0wQFjAIegQIBxAB" style="cursor: pointer; text-decoration-line: none;" /><a href="https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2016/06/exxon-ken-paxton-first-amendment/" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2016/06/exxon-ken-paxton-first-amendment/&ved=2ahUKEwif_MHKt-jAhUIGKwKHbRUB0wQFjAIegQIBxAB" style="cursor: pointer; text-decoration-line: none;" /><a href="https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2016/06/exxon-ken-paxton-first-amendment/" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2016/06/exxon-ken-paxton-first-amendment/&ved=2ahUKEwif_MHKt-jAhUIGKwKHbRUB0wQFjAIegQIBxAB" style="cursor: pointer; text-decoration-line: none;" /><a href="https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2016/06/exxon-ken-paxton-first-amendment/" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2016/06/exxon-ken-paxton-first-amendment/&ved=2ahUKEwif_MHKt-jAhUIGKwKHbRUB0wQFjAIegQIBxAB" style="cursor: pointer; text-decoration-line: none;" /><a href="https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2016/06/exxon-ken-paxton-first-amendment/" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2016/06/exxon-ken-paxton-first-amendment/&ved=2ahUKEwif_MHKt-jAhUIGKwKHbRUB0wQFjAIegQIBxAB" style="cursor: pointer; text-decoration-line: none;" /><a href="https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2016/06/exxon-ken-paxton-first-amendment/" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2016/06/exxon-ken-paxton-first-amendment/&ved=2ahUKEwif_MHKt-jAhUIGKwKHbRUB0wQFjAIegQIBxAB" style="cursor: pointer; text-decoration-line: none;" /><a href="https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2016/06/exxon-ken-paxton-first-amendment/" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2016/06/exxon-ken-paxton-first-amendment/&ved=2ahUKEwif_MHKt-jAhUIGKwKHbRUB0wQFjAIegQIBxAB" style="cursor: pointer; text-decoration-line: none;" /><a href="https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2016/06/exxon-ken-paxton-first-amendment/" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2016/06/exxon-ken-paxton-first-amendment/&ved=2ahUKEwif_MHKt-jAhUIGKwKHbRUB0wQFjAIegQIBxAB" style="cursor: pointer; text-decoration-line: none;" /><a href="https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2016/06/exxon-ken-paxton-first-amendment/" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2016/06/exxon-ken-paxton-first-amendment/&ved=2ahUKEwif_MHKt-jAhUIGKwKHbRUB0wQFjAIegQIBxAB" style="cursor: pointer; text-decoration-line: none;">Does Exxon Have a Constitutional Right to Deny Climate Change ...</a></h3>
<div class="TbwUpd" style="display: inline-block; line-height: 1.54; padding-bottom: 1px; padding-top: 1px;"><cite class="iUh30" style="font-style: normal; padding-top: 1px; line-height: 1.43;">https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2016/.../exxon-ken-paxton-first-amendme...</cite></div><div class="action-menu ab_ctl" style="display: inline; position: relative; margin: 1px 3px 0px; user-select: none; vertical-align: middle;"><a class="GHDvEf ab_button" href="https://www.google.com/search?q=AG+paxton+alabama+claude+walker+exxon&oq=AG+paxton+alabama+claude+walker+exxon&aqs=chrome..69i57.18463j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#" id="am-b8" aria-label="Result Options" aria-expanded="false" aria-haspopup="true" role="button" jsaction="m.tdd;keydown:m.hbke;keypress:m.mskpe" data-ved="2ahUKEwif_MHKt-jAhUIGKwKHbRUB0wQ7B0wCHoECAcQAg" style="border-radius: 0px; cursor: default; font-weight: bold; height: 12px; line-height: 27px; margin: 1px 0px 2px; min-width: 0px; padding: 0px; text-align: center; transition: none 0s ease 0s; user-select: none; background-image: none; border: 0px; box-shadow: 0px 0px 0px 0px; filter: none; width: 13px; text-decoration-line: none; display: inline-block;"><span class="mn-dwn-arw" style="text-align: left; border-color: rgb(0, 102, 33) transparent; border-style: solid; border-width: 5px 4px 0px; width: 0px; height: 0px; margin-left: 3px; top: 7.5px; margin-top: -4px; position: absolute; left: 0px;" /></a><div class="action-menu-panel ab_dropdown" role="menu" tabindex="-1" jsaction="keydown:m.hdke;mouseover:m.hdhne;mouseout:m.hdhue" data-ved="2ahUKEwif_MHKt-jAhUIGKwKHbRUB0wQqR8wCHoECAcQAw" style="background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; border: 1px solid rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.2); padding: 0px; position: absolute; right: auto; top: 12px; white-space: nowrap; z-index: 3; transition: opacity 0.218s ease 0s; box-shadow: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.2) 0px 2px 4px; left: 0px; visibility: hidden;"><ol style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px;"><li class="action-menu-item ab_dropdownitem" role="menuitem" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; list-style: none; user-select: none; cursor: pointer;"><a class="fl" href="https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:mUdatc5ZCQwJ:https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2016/06/exxon-ken-paxton-first-amendment/+&cd=9&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search%3Fq%3Dcache:mUdatc5ZCQwJ:https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2016/06/exxon-ken-paxton-first-amendment/%2B%26cd%3D9%26hl%3Den%26ct%3Dclnk%26gl%3Dus&ved=2ahUKEwif_MHKt-jAhUIGKwKHbRUB0wQIDAIegQIBxAE" style="text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer; display: block; padding: 7px 18px; outline: 0px;" /></li></ol></div></div></div><div class="s" style="max-width: 48em; line-height: 1.54; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><a class="fl" href="https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:mUdatc5ZCQwJ:https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2016/06/exxon-ken-paxton-first-amendment/+&cd=9&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search%3Fq%3Dcache:mUdatc5ZCQwJ:https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2016/06/exxon-ken-paxton-first-amendment/%2B%26cd%3D9%26hl%3Den%26ct%3Dclnk%26gl%3Dus&ved=2ahUKEwif_MHKt-jAhUIGKwKHbRUB0wQIDAIegQIBxAE" style="text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer; display: block; padding: 7px 18px; outline: 0px;"></a><a class="fl" href="https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:mUdatc5ZCQwJ:https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2016/06/exxon-ken-paxton-first-amendment/+&cd=9&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search%3Fq%3Dcache:mUdatc5ZCQwJ:https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2016/06/exxon-ken-paxton-first-amendment/%2B%26cd%3D9%26hl%3Den%26ct%3Dclnk%26gl%3Dus&ved=2ahUKEwif_MHKt-jAhUIGKwKHbRUB0wQIDAIegQIBxAE" style="text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer; display: block; padding: 7px 18px; outline: 0px;">Jun 30, 2016 - Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton took Exxon's side in the company's ... In March, US Virgin Islands Attorney General Claude Walker served the ... The brief was also signed by Alabama Attorney General Luther Strange (R).</a></div></div><div><a class="fl" href="https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:mUdatc5ZCQwJ:https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2016/06/exxon-ken-paxton-first-amendment/+&cd=9&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search%3Fq%3Dcache:mUdatc5ZCQwJ:https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2016/06/exxon-ken-paxton-first-amendment/%2B%26cd%3D9%26hl%3Den%26ct%3Dclnk%26gl%3Dus&ved=2ahUKEwif_MHKt-jAhUIGKwKHbRUB0wQIDAIegQIBxAE" style="text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer; display: block; padding: 7px 18px; outline: 0px;"></a><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><a class="fl" href="https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:mUdatc5ZCQwJ:https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2016/06/exxon-ken-paxton-first-amendment/+&cd=9&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search%3Fq%3Dcache:mUdatc5ZCQwJ:https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2016/06/exxon-ken-paxton-first-amendment/%2B%26cd%3D9%26hl%3Den%26ct%3Dclnk%26gl%3Dus&ved=2ahUKEwif_MHKt-jAhUIGKwKHbRUB0wQIDAIegQIBxAE" style="text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer; display: block; padding: 7px 18px; outline: 0px;"></a><a href="https://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/the-constitution-gives-david-barton-more-protection-than-the-rest-of-you/" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">https://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/the-constitution-gives-david-barton-more-protection-than-the-rest-of-you/</a></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><p style="margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; box-sizing: border-box; transition-duration: 0.2s; transition-property: background-color, border-color, box-shadow, color, opacity, text-shadow, transform; transition-timing-function: linear; line-height: 1.5;">Earlier this month, Religious Right pseudo-historian David Barton asserted on his “WallBuilders Live” <a href="https://wallbuilderslive.com/founders-using-phrase-united-states-of-america/" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; box-sizing: border-box; transition-duration: 0.2s; transition-property: background-color, border-color, box-shadow, color, opacity, text-shadow, transform; transition-timing-function: linear; background-color: transparent; outline-offset: 0.111111em;">radio program</a> that “religious folks” are entitled to “more protection” under the First Amendment than everyone else.<p style="margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; box-sizing: border-box; transition-duration: 0.2s; transition-property: background-color, border-color, box-shadow, color, opacity, text-shadow, transform; transition-timing-function: linear; line-height: 1.5;">Barton was praising recent Supreme Court rulings having to do with the issues of religious liberty and expression, such as the <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/20/us/politics/maryland-peace-cross-supreme-court.html" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; box-sizing: border-box; transition-duration: 0.2s; transition-property: background-color, border-color, box-shadow, color, opacity, text-shadow, transform; transition-timing-function: linear; background-color: transparent; outline-offset: 0.111111em;">Bladensburg cross case</a>, and hailed the Court for supposedly recognizing that the Founding Father intended for religious citizens to be granted “added, special protection” under the Constitution … three times more protection, to be exact.<p style="margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; box-sizing: border-box; transition-duration: 0.2s; transition-property: background-color, border-color, box-shadow, color, opacity, text-shadow, transform; transition-timing-function: linear; line-height: 1.5;">“Secular speech is protected by the Constitution,” Barton said, “but religious speech has several protections in the First Amendment.”<p style="margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; box-sizing: border-box; transition-duration: 0.2s; transition-property: background-color, border-color, box-shadow, color, opacity, text-shadow, transform; transition-timing-function: linear; line-height: 1.5;">Barton said that while everyone has a right to free speech, religious speech and expression are “protected by three clauses,” which means that his speech is entitled to “more protection, if you will, than just normal, secular speech.”<p style="margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; box-sizing: border-box; transition-duration: 0.2s; transition-property: background-color, border-color, box-shadow, color, opacity, text-shadow, transform; transition-timing-function: linear; line-height: 1.5;">He insisted that the idea that secular speech or expression should receive the same protections as religious speech or expression is unconstitutional because “that’s not what the First Amendment gave me.”<p style="margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; box-sizing: border-box; transition-duration: 0.2s; transition-property: background-color, border-color, box-shadow, color, opacity, text-shadow, transform; transition-timing-function: linear; line-height: 1.5;">;">“It gave me more protection because I get my speech but if it’s religious, I get it twice, and if it is religious with others, I get it three times,” Barton claimed. “In addition to free speech, there is also free exercise of religion, which often involves free speech. For me to exercise my faith means I will speak about it, I will live it out, I will activate it, I will do it. And, by the way, I have the right to assembly, so I can get together with other believers and we can act out our faith … While religious folks have at least three different forms of protection under the First Amendment for their speech, secular folks have their protections as well for speech and assembly, but they just don’t have the same religious motivations.”<p style="margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; box-sizing: border-box; transition-duration: 0.2s; transition-property: background-color, border-color, box-shadow, color, opacity, text-shadow, transform; transition-timing-function: linear; line-height: 1.5;">When Barton’s son, Tim, tried to clarify that all citizens “have the exact same protections that a religious person does,” Barton disputed that assessment.<p style="margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; box-sizing: border-box; transition-duration: 0.2s; transition-property: background-color, border-color, box-shadow, color, opacity, text-shadow, transform; transition-timing-function: linear; line-height: 1.5;">“You actually get added protection because it singles out your religious expression,” he said, “That’s a level of protection the Founding Fathers wanted to make sure that religious folks had, so they singled that out to give, if you will, added protection if you’re a religious folk … The First Amendment says, ‘Hey, religion is so vitally important that you get added, special protection.’”</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">=</div></div><div></div><div><a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/08/us-judge-halts-trump-hhs-rule-requiring-drug-prices-in-tv-ads.html">https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/08/us-judge-halts-trump-hhs-rule-requiring-drug-prices-in-tv-ads.html</a></div><div>
</div><div>...A federal judge on Monday blocked the Trump administration from implementing a new rule that would force pharmaceutical companies to include the wholesale prices of their drugs in television advertising.</div>U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta in Washington, D.C., sided with drugmakers <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/quotes/?symbol=MRK" alt="" class="" rel="" target="" title="" role="" tabindex="" data-type="" aria-label="" style="box-sizing: border-box; cursor: pointer;">Merck & Co</a>, <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/quotes/?symbol=LLY" alt="" class="" rel="" target="" title="" role="" tabindex="" data-type="" aria-label="" style="box-sizing: border-box; cursor: pointer;">Eli Lilly and Co</a> and <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/quotes/?symbol=AMGN" alt="" class="" rel="" target="" title="" role="" tabindex="" data-type="" aria-label="" style="box-sizing: border-box; cursor: pointer;">Amgen</a> by halting the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services rule from taking effect on Tuesday as planned</div><div>
</div><div>HS Secretary Alex Azar announced the rule on May 8, saying that forcing drugmakers to disclose their prices in direct-to-consumer TV advertising could help drive down skyrocketing prescription drug costs if the companies were embarrassed by them or afraid they would scare away customers.The rule was originally suggested last May as part of U.S. President Donald Trump’s “blueprint” to lower prescription drug costs for U.S. consumers....<div>am pro<header class="entry-header" style="box-sizing: inherit;"><time class="entry-time" itemprop="datePublished" datetime="2019-07-10T15:18:58+00:00" style="box-sizing: inherit;">July 10, 2019</time> by <a href="https://www.americanpromise.net/author/sfagan/" class="entry-author-link" itemprop="url" rel="author" style="box-sizing: inherit; background-color: transparent; transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out 0s; text-decoration-line: none;">Susie Fagan</a></header><div class="entry-content" itemprop="text" style="box-sizing: inherit;">A Trump administration-backed rule requiring pharmaceutical companies to disclose drug prices in TV ads was blocked in federal court. Among the arguments was drug companies’ claim that the rule would violate their First Amendment rights. A new rule to require pharmaceutical companies to publish drug prices in their television advertising was <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/08/us-judge-halts-trump-hhs-rule-requiring-drug-prices-in-tv-ads.html" style="box-sizing: inherit; transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out 0s; text-decoration-line: none;">blocked by a federal court</a> a day before it was to take effect. President Donald Trump’s administration pushed for the rule as part of its effort to reduce prescription drug prices for U.S. consumers. Three drugmakers—Merck, Eli Lilly and Amgen—filed the legal challenge along with the advertising trade group the Association of National Advertisers, arguing that the rule: <ul style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 28px 40px; padding: 0px;"><li style="box-sizing: inherit; list-style: disc; margin-left: 25px;">Went beyond the authority of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services because Congress did not authorize the requirement.</li><li style="box-sizing: inherit; list-style: disc; margin-left: 25px;">Would confuse consumers by forcing them to disclose a price irrelevant to patients with insurance.</li><li style="box-sizing: inherit; list-style: disc; margin-left: 25px;">Violated their free speech rights under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.</li></ul>That last argument leans on the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in the 2010 Citizens United v. FEC case. In that 5-4 decision, the court lifted restrictions on corporate political spending, calling the restrictions violations of corporations’ 1st Amendment free speech rights, enshrining constitutional rights for corporations and <a href="https://www.americanpromise.net/dark_money_101_secretive_political_donations_grow_since_citizens_united/" style="box-sizing: inherit; transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out 0s; text-decoration-line: none;">unleashing a wave of political spending</a> from Super PACs and other outside groups.A Hot Topic in Congress<figure id="attachment_3328" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-3328" class="wp-caption alignleft" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 24px 24px 0px; max-width: 100%; float: left; width: 257px;">
<figcaption id="caption-attachment-3328" class="wp-caption-text" style="text-align: left; box-sizing: inherit; font-weight: 600; margin: 0px;">A federal judge this week blocked a White House initiative on prescription drug costs, saying the Trump administration lacked the legal authority to require drugmakers to disclose their prices in television ads.</figcaption></figure>The rule, which would have required ads for any medicine with a list price over $35 a month to disclose the cost during the commercial, is just one of several recent attempts on both sides of the aisle to rein in drug prices. Nearly a quarter of Americans say they have trouble affording the cost of their prescription drugs, <a href="https://www.kff.org/health-costs/press-release/poll-nearly-1-in-4-americans-taking-prescription-drugs-say-its-difficult-to-afford-medicines-including-larger-shares-with-low-incomes/" style="box-sizing: inherit; transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out 0s; text-decoration-line: none;">according to a recent Kaiser Family Foundation poll</a>, and nearly a third say they don’t take their medicines as prescribed because of high costs. A cross-partisan majority of Americans say drug companies should have to list prices in their ads, as proposed by the Trump administration and advocated for by consumer rights groups, and that regulations should be changed to speed access to generic drugs. Drug prices are a hot topic during this session of Congress, with notable bipartisan support—yet initial efforts have stalled in the face of pharmaceutical industry lobbying, <a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2019/06/efforts-to-reduce-drug-prices-stall-amid-pharmaceutical-lobbying/" style="box-sizing: inherit; transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out 0s; text-decoration-line: none;">according to the Center for Responsive Politics</a>. Lawmakers are considering several pieces of legislation designed to limit rising costs: <ul style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 28px 40px; padding: 0px;"><li style="box-sizing: inherit; list-style: disc; margin-left: 25px;">The Affordable Prescriptions for Patients Act, introduced by Sens. John Cornyn (R-Texas) and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), would classify certain patent practices as anticompetitive, making it easier for the Federal Trade Commission to bring lawsuits against drug companies that try to block generic alternatives. After backlash from the pharmaceutical industry, <a href="https://about.bgov.com/news/drug-industry-notches-win-as-senator-rethinks-patent-measure/" style="box-sizing: inherit; transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out 0s; text-decoration-line: none;">the bill is undergoing changes</a> in what is being called “a major victory” for the drug industry. </li><li style="box-sizing: inherit; list-style: disc; margin-left: 25px;">In late May, Sens. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) and Patty Murray (D-Wash.) introduced a more comprehensive bill that targets drug prices as well as other health care issues such as surprise billing.</li><li style="box-sizing: inherit; list-style: disc; margin-left: 25px;">In June, Reps. Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.), Debbie Mucarsel-Powell (D-Fla.), Doug Collins (R-Ga.) and Ben Cline (R-Va.) introduced a bill that seeks to allow for more generic drugs by increasing the burden of proof for companies seeking additional patents on an existing medication. </li></ul>The pharmaceutical industry has long ranked among the <a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?Ind=H4300" style="box-sizing: inherit; transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out 0s; text-decoration-line: none;">top industries for campaign donations</a>, with the three drug companies that filed the lawsuit among among the industry’s top four political contributors for the 2017-2018 campaign cycle.Overcoming Big MoneyIn ruling that corporate political spending was protected free speech in Citizens United, the Supreme Court based its decision on the assertion that corporations deserve these constitutional protections because they are assemblies of people. However, corporations typically don’t represent the opinions of all of the people who comprise them—and <a href="https://www.americanpromise.net/5-reasons-we-need-an-amendment-to-say-corporations-arent-people/" style="box-sizing: inherit; transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out 0s; text-decoration-line: none;">most Americans agree that corporations are not people</a>.The <a href="https://www.americanpromise.net/who-we-are/the-28th-amendment/" style="box-sizing: inherit; transition: all 0.1s ease-in-out 0s; text-decoration-line: none;">28th Amendment</a> will affirm the rights of people in our government—rather than corporations, unions, special interest groups and other big-money influences—by addressing reforms to political spending and other issues, including corporate rights, gerrymandering and term limits for Congress.Through a constitutional amendment, Americans can strengthen our elections, prevent corruption, and ensure equal representation and political equality.</div></div><div></div><div>AN 619</div><div><div></div><div><div class="header-list-style" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; position: relative; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><h2 class="entry-title grid-title" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;" open="Open" sans="Sans" sans-serif="sans-serif" letter-spacing="letter-spacing" px="px">K<a href="https://www.alternet.org/2019/06/kansas-city-star-editorial-board-blasts-missouri-republican-for-orwellian-bill-aimed-at-big-tech-companies-a-dangerous-assault-on-the-first-amendment/" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: all 0.3s ease 0s; cursor: pointer; letter-spacing: 0px;">ansas City Star editorial board blasts Missouri Republican for bill aimed at big tech companies: ‘A dangerous assault on the First Amendment’</a></h2><div class="grid-post-box-meta" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 12px 0px 0px; padding: 0px;">by <a class="url fn n" href="https://www.alternet.org/author/alex-henderson/" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s; cursor: pointer;">Alex Henderson</a> June 20, 2019</div></div><div class="item-content entry-content" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 18px 0px 0px; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Republican Sen. Josh Hawley is wing criticism from both the left and the right for a bill they are stressing would reduce First Amendment protections for large tech companies. And…</div></div><div>=</div></div><div><div></div><div>dn 619</div><div><ul style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 20px 0px 0px; padding: 0px; text-align: center; background-color: rgb(241, 242, 243);"><li class="hidden-xs" style="text-align: left; box-sizing: border-box; list-style-type: none; padding: 0px 0px 23px; font-weight: 700; line-height: 1.33;"><a data-ga-action="Home Headlines: Headline" href="https://www.democracynow.org/2019/6/19/headlines/scotus_rules_public_access_station_not_bound_by_1st_amendment" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none; outline: 0px; border: 0px;">SCOTUS Rules Public Access Station Not Bound by 1st Amendment</a></li></ul></div></div><div></div><div><a href="https://www.climateliabilitynews.org/2018/01/16/exxon-continues-first-amendment-defense-climate-fraud-probes/">https://www.climateliabilitynews.org/2018/01/16/exxon-continues-first-amendment-defense-climate-fraud-probes/</a></div><div>
</div><div> Karen SavageExxon continues to cry foul, alleging that two state attorneys general are violating its First Amendment right to express its  opinion on climate change.In a brief filed last week in New York, attorneys for Exxon once again asserted that that investigations by Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey and New York Attorney Eric Schneiderman are part of a politically motivated conspiracy against the company and an attempt to silence the oil giant through intimidation.The filing was the latest effort by Exxon to thwart investigations by the attorneys general into possible climate change-related deception by the company. It follows <a href="https://insideclimatenews.org/news/22122017/exxon-climate-change-disclosure-state-investor-fraud-investigations-court-documents" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none;">a filing by the AGs</a> in December urging a dismissal of Exxon’s suit against them, based on the company’s <a href="https://tools.ceres.org/resources/tools/resolutions/exxon-2-degrees-scenario-analysis-2017/@@s3_view" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none;">recent announcement</a> that it would begin considering climate risks on its business in disclosures to its stockholders. Healey and Schneiderman contend that announcement equates to an admission that Exxon has not been forthcoming about those risks as the AGs have alleged.But Exxon continues to insist that the investigations are an abuse of Healey’s and Schneiderman’s political positions and are violations of the oil giant’s First, Fourth and Fourteenth amendment rights.In November, New York U.S. District Court Judge Valerie Caproni ordered each side to submit written arguments in the case, which was first filed by Exxon in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas in June 2016, but has since<a href="http://www.mass.gov/ago/docs/energy-utilities/exxon/3-29-17-order-transferring-case-to-new-york.pdf" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none;"> been transferred</a> to New York.In its most recent brief, attorneys for Exxon<a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4349504-Exxon-Response-Jan-12-2018.html" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none;"> said</a> the attorneys general are targeting Exxon with “burdensome” and “harassing” investigations because of the company’s views on climate change. Attorneys also link Healey and Schneiderman to climate activists who Exxon says are seeking to “harass perceived political opponents” and “delegitimize” Exxon.Attorneys for Healey call Exxon’s allegations absurd, particularly considering Exxon has taken the public stance of supporting the overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change.  “Exxon asserts that Attorney General Healey has joined in an illegal conspiracy to violate Exxon’s rights because she does not agree with Exxon’s views about climate change. Yet Exxon also states that it now endorses climate science, the existence of climate change, and efforts to combat it—consistent with Attorney Healey’s position,” Healey’s attorneys wrote in a recent brief.Schneiderman’s attorneys said that for Exxon to prevail on a free speech allegation, it must plead and prove its right to free speech has been violated, something they contend Exxon has not done.They point to Exxon’s own court filings, in which the company said it speaks publicly about the risks of climate change and shares its perspective on climate change on the company’s<a href="http://corporate.exxonmobil.com/en/current-issues/climate-policy/climate-perspectives/our-position" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none;"> website</a>.;">In a website posting last week, Exxon denounced a recent climate change-related lawsuit<a href="https://www.climateliabilitynews.org/2018/01/10/new-york-city-climate-lawsuit-liability-bill-de-blasio/" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none;"> filed</a>;"> against it by New York City and reiterated its climate change perspective. A<a href="https://twitter.com/exxonmobil/status/951205494978433024" style="background-color: transparent; box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none;"> video</a> shared on the company’s Twitter page carried a similar message.“These public statements demonstrate that, far from being muzzled, Exxon<a href="http://news.exxonmobil.com/press-release/exxonmobil-ny-attorney-generals-reckless-and-false-allegations-misstate-climate-polici" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none;"> regularly</a><a href="http://news.exxonmobil.com/press-release/exxonmobil-asks-federal-court-invalidate-new-york-attorney-generals-subpoena"> engages in corporate</a><a href="http://news.exxonmobil.com/press-release/exxonmobil-asks-federal-court-invalidate-new-york-attorney-generals-subpoena" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none;"> advocacy</a> concerning climate change,” wrote attorneys for Schneiderman, adding that a state investigation is not a violation of Exxon’s constitutionally protected rights.Schneiderman also said that fraudulent statements are not protected by the First Amendment.Exxon fired back, alleging that not only are its statements protected but also the company has been harmed by having to endure the “burden and expense” of the investigations.“Based on the record before this Court, there is no basis to classify ExxonMobil’s speech on climate change and climate policy as anything but fully protected by the First Amendment,” wrote attorneys for Exxon.But attorneys for Healey said Exxon’s <a href="https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/34088/000003408817000057/r8k121117.htm" style="box-sizing: inherit; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">recent filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission</a> that promised climate risk disclosure raises further questions about the company’s truthfulness.That decision came after 62 percent of Exxon shareholders <a href="https://insideclimatenews.org/news/31052017/exxon-shareholder-climate-change-disclosure-resolution-approved" style="box-sizing: inherit; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">voted</a> in favor of requiring the company to produce a report outlining financial risks to the company from global efforts to prevent temperatures from rising more than 2 degrees Celcius.“This filing makes clear that, at a minimum, Exxon’s prior disclosures to investors, including Massachusetts investors, may not have adequately accounted for the effect of climate change on its business and assets,” attorneys for Healey wrote.
By Karen Savage Exxon continues to try to shake probes by two state attorneys general into possible climate fraud by the company. The oil giant filed notice on Friday that it will appeal the decision by a federal judge to dismiss its suit against Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey and…">Exxon Will Continue to Fight Climate Probes by State Attorneys General
By Karen Savage Exxon’s quest to convince a federal judge that two state attorneys general are stifling their right to free speech is proving to be no easy task. In a hearing Thursday in New York, U.S. District Court Judge Valerie Caproni said the oil giant’s rationale involved “wild leaps…" rel="nofollow" data-origin="2951" data-position="1" style="box-sizing: inherit; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none; opacity: 1;">Exxon's First Amendment Claims in Climate Fraud Case w Judge's SkepticismBy Karen Savage A federal judge dismissed Exxon’s lawsuit attempting to stop investigations by two state attorneys general into potential climate fraud by the company, which the company claimed are politically motivated and in violation of its Constitutional rights. Ruling that Exxon’s allegations against Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey and…" rel="nofollow" data-origin="2951" data-position="2" style="box-sizing: inherit; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none; opacity: 1;">Federal Judge Dismisses Exxon Lawsuit Challenging State Climate Probesno lnx
Exxon Faces Another Shareholder Climate Lawsuit Chamber of Commerce Reports: Government Should Squelch Municipal Climate Suits Chamber of Commerce Reports: Government Should Squelch Municipal Climate Suits What Oil Companies Knew About Climate Change and When: A Timeline What Oil Companies Knew About Climate Change and When: A Timeline Human Rights Claims Show Promise in Climate Cases, Report Says Human Rights Claims Show Promise in Climate Cases, Report Says
 Inside the GCC: The Industry Group That Mobilized to Fight Global Climate Action Inside the GCC: The Industry Group That Mobilized to Fight Global Climate Action
 Global Climate Coalition: Documents Show How a Fossil Fuel Lobby Group Manipulated UN Climate Negotiations Global Climate Coalition: Documents Show How a Fossil Fuel Lobby Group Manipulated UN Climate Negotiations
 Government Says Kids Have No Right to Sue Over Climate Change Government Says Kids Have No Right to Sue Over Climate Change
Recent Posts
Chamber of Commerce Reports: Government Should Squelch Municipal Climate Suits
Exxon Faces Another Shareholder Climate Lawsuit
UK Court Rejects Climate Challenge to Heathrow Airport Expansion
Human Rights Claims Show Promise in Climate Cases, Report Says
Toronto Will Explore Suing Big Oil for Climate Costs
=
ref filing
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4349504-Exxon-Response-Jan-12-2018.html<p class="jp-relatedposts-post jp-relatedposts-post0" data-post-id="3381" data-post-format="false" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 1em; line-height: 20px; overflow: hidden; float: left; width: 750px; clear: both; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><a class="jp-relatedposts-post-a" href="https://www.climateliabilitynews.org/2018/04/23/exxon-climate-probe-new-york-massachusetts/" title="Exxon Will Continue to Fight Climate Probes by State Attorneys General" /></div><div><a class="jp-relatedposts-post-a" href="https://www.climateliabilitynews.org/2018/04/23/exxon-climate-probe-new-york-massachusetts/" title="Exxon Will Continue to Fight Climate Probes by State Attorneys General"></a><a class="jp-relatedposts-post-a" href="https://www.climateliabilitynews.org/2018/04/23/exxon-climate-probe-new-york-massachusetts/" title="Exxon Will Continue to Fight Climate Probes by State Attorneys General">...</a></div><div><pre class="DV-textContents" style="box-sizing: content-box; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 1.4em; overflow: hidden; white-space: pre-wrap; overflow-wrap: break-word; margin: 46px;"><a class="jp-relatedposts-post-a" href="https://www.climateliabilitynews.org/2018/04/23/exxon-climate-probe-new-york-massachusetts/" title="Exxon Will Continue to Fight Climate Probes by State Attorneys General">UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT</a></pre></div><div><a class="jp-relatedposts-post-a" href="https://www.climateliabilitynews.org/2018/04/23/exxon-climate-probe-new-york-massachusetts/" title="Exxon Will Continue to Fight Climate Probes by State Attorneys General">SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK</a></div><div><a class="jp-relatedposts-post-a" href="https://www.climateliabilitynews.org/2018/04/23/exxon-climate-probe-new-york-massachusetts/" title="Exxon Will Continue to Fight Climate Probes by State Attorneys General">EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION,</a></div><div><a class="jp-relatedposts-post-a" href="https://www.climateliabilitynews.org/2018/04/23/exxon-climate-probe-new-york-massachusetts/" title="Exxon Will Continue to Fight Climate Probes by State Attorneys General">Plaintiff,</a></div><div><a class="jp-relatedposts-post-a" href="https://www.climateliabilitynews.org/2018/04/23/exxon-climate-probe-new-york-massachusetts/" title="Exxon Will Continue to Fight Climate Probes by State Attorneys General">No. 17-CV-2301 (VEC) (SN)</a></div><div><a class="jp-relatedposts-post-a" href="https://www.climateliabilitynews.org/2018/04/23/exxon-climate-probe-new-york-massachusetts/" title="Exxon Will Continue to Fight Climate Probes by State Attorneys General">
</a></div><div><a class="jp-relatedposts-post-a" href="https://www.climateliabilitynews.org/2018/04/23/exxon-climate-probe-new-york-massachusetts/" title="Exxon Will Continue to Fight Climate Probes by State Attorneys General">v.</a></div><div><a class="jp-relatedposts-post-a" href="https://www.climateliabilitynews.org/2018/04/23/exxon-climate-probe-new-york-massachusetts/" title="Exxon Will Continue to Fight Climate Probes by State Attorneys General">ERIC TRADD SCHNEIDERMAN, Attorney</a></div><div><a class="jp-relatedposts-post-a" href="https://www.climateliabilitynews.org/2018/04/23/exxon-climate-probe-new-york-massachusetts/" title="Exxon Will Continue to Fight Climate Probes by State Attorneys General">General of New York, in his official capacity, and</a></div><div><a class="jp-relatedposts-post-a" href="https://www.climateliabilitynews.org/2018/04/23/exxon-climate-probe-new-york-massachusetts/" title="Exxon Will Continue to Fight Climate Probes by State Attorneys General">MAURA TRACY HEALEY, Attorney General of</a></div><div><a class="jp-relatedposts-post-a" href="https://www.climateliabilitynews.org/2018/04/23/exxon-climate-probe-new-york-massachusetts/" title="Exxon Will Continue to Fight Climate Probes by State Attorneys General">Massachusetts, in her official capacity,</a></div><div><a class="jp-relatedposts-post-a" href="https://www.climateliabilitynews.org/2018/04/23/exxon-climate-probe-new-york-massachusetts/" title="Exxon Will Continue to Fight Climate Probes by State Attorneys General">Defendants.</a></div><div><a class="jp-relatedposts-post-a" href="https://www.climateliabilitynews.org/2018/04/23/exxon-climate-probe-new-york-massachusetts/" title="Exxon Will Continue to Fight Climate Probes by State Attorneys General">
</a></div><div><a class="jp-relatedposts-post-a" href="https://www.climateliabilitynews.org/2018/04/23/exxon-climate-probe-new-york-massachusetts/" title="Exxon Will Continue to Fight Climate Probes by State Attorneys General">EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’</a></div><div><a class="jp-relatedposts-post-a" href="https://www.climateliabilitynews.org/2018/04/23/exxon-climate-probe-new-york-massachusetts/" title="Exxon Will Continue to Fight Climate Probes by State Attorneys General">MOTIONS TO DISMISS THE AMENDED COMPLAINT UNDER RULE 12(B)(6)</a></div><div><a class="jp-relatedposts-post-a" href="https://www.climateliabilitynews.org/2018/04/23/exxon-climate-probe-new-york-massachusetts/" title="Exxon Will Continue to Fight Climate Probes by State Attorneys General">
</a></div><div><a class="jp-relatedposts-post-a" href="https://www.climateliabilitynews.org/2018/04/23/exxon-climate-probe-new-york-massachusetts/" title="Exxon Will Continue to Fight Climate Probes by State Attorneys General">PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND,</a></div><div><a class="jp-relatedposts-post-a" href="https://www.climateliabilitynews.org/2018/04/23/exxon-climate-probe-new-york-massachusetts/" title="Exxon Will Continue to Fight Climate Probes by State Attorneys General">WHARTON & GARRISON LLP</a></div><div><a class="jp-relatedposts-post-a" href="https://www.climateliabilitynews.org/2018/04/23/exxon-climate-probe-new-york-massachusetts/" title="Exxon Will Continue to Fight Climate Probes by State Attorneys General">1285 Avenue of the Americas</a></div><div><a class="jp-relatedposts-post-a" href="https://www.climateliabilitynews.org/2018/04/23/exxon-climate-probe-new-york-massachusetts/" title="Exxon Will Continue to Fight Climate Probes by State Attorneys General">New York, NY 10019-6064</a></div><div><a class="jp-relatedposts-post-a" href="https://www.climateliabilitynews.org/2018/04/23/exxon-climate-probe-new-york-massachusetts/" title="Exxon Will Continue to Fight Climate Probes by State Attorneys General">HAYNES & BOONE, LLP</a></div><div><a class="jp-relatedposts-post-a" href="https://www.climateliabilitynews.org/2018/04/23/exxon-climate-probe-new-york-massachusetts/" title="Exxon Will Continue to Fight Climate Probes by State Attorneys General">2323 Victory Avenue, Suite 700</a></div><div><a class="jp-relatedposts-post-a" href="https://www.climateliabilitynews.org/2018/04/23/exxon-climate-probe-new-york-massachusetts/" title="Exxon Will Continue to Fight Climate Probes by State Attorneys General">Dallas, TX 75219</a></div><div><a class="jp-relatedposts-post-a" href="https://www.climateliabilitynews.org/2018/04/23/exxon-climate-probe-new-york-massachusetts/" title="Exxon Will Continue to Fight Climate Probes by State Attorneys General">Tel: (214) 651-5579</a></div><div><a class="jp-relatedposts-post-a" href="https://www.climateliabilitynews.org/2018/04/23/exxon-climate-probe-new-york-massachusetts/" title="Exxon Will Continue to Fight Climate Probes by State Attorneys General">CANTEY HANGER LLP</a></div><div><a class="jp-relatedposts-post-a" href="https://www.climateliabilitynews.org/2018/04/23/exxon-climate-probe-new-york-massachusetts/" title="Exxon Will Continue to Fight Climate Probes by State Attorneys General">600 W. 6th St. #300</a></div><div><a class="jp-relatedposts-post-a" href="https://www.climateliabilitynews.org/2018/04/23/exxon-climate-probe-new-york-massachusetts/" title="Exxon Will Continue to Fight Climate Probes by State Attorneys General">Fort Worth, TX 76102</a></div><div><a class="jp-relatedposts-post-a" href="https://www.climateliabilitynews.org/2018/04/23/exxon-climate-probe-new-york-massachusetts/" title="Exxon Will Continue to Fight Climate Probes by State Attorneys General">Tel: (817) 877-2800</a></div><div><a class="jp-relatedposts-post-a" href="https://www.climateliabilitynews.org/2018/04/23/exxon-climate-probe-new-york-massachusetts/" title="Exxon Will Continue to Fight Climate Probes by State Attorneys General">Counsel for Exxon Mobil Corporation</a><pre class="DV-textContents" style="box-sizing: content-box; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 1.4em; overflow: hidden; white-space: pre-wrap; overflow-wrap: break-word; margin: 46px;"><a class="jp-relatedposts-post-a" href="https://www.climateliabilitynews.org/2018/04/23/exxon-climate-probe-new-york-massachusetts/" title="Exxon Will Continue to Fight Climate Probes by State Attorneys General">...PRELIMINARY STATEMENT</a></pre><pre class="DV-textContents" style="box-sizing: content-box; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 1.4em; overflow: hidden; white-space: pre-wrap; overflow-wrap: break-word; margin: 46px;">The Attorneys General of New York and Massachusetts (the “Attorneys General”) ask</pre></div><div><a class="jp-relatedposts-post-a" href="https://www.climateliabilitynews.org/2018/04/23/exxon-climate-probe-new-york-massachusetts/" title="Exxon Will Continue to Fight Climate Probes by State Attorneys General">this Court to abdicate its duty to protect constitutional rights from overreaching state power. In</a></div><div><a class="jp-relatedposts-post-a" href="https://www.climateliabilitynews.org/2018/04/23/exxon-climate-probe-new-york-massachusetts/" title="Exxon Will Continue to Fight Climate Probes by State Attorneys General">their telling, it is “speculative” and “implausible” for a plaintiff to allege that public officials</a></div><div><a class="jp-relatedposts-post-a" href="https://www.climateliabilitynews.org/2018/04/23/exxon-climate-probe-new-york-massachusetts/" title="Exxon Will Continue to Fight Climate Probes by State Attorneys General">took adverse action against ExxonMobil because they disagreed with the viewpoint expressed in</a></div><div><a class="jp-relatedposts-post-a" href="https://www.climateliabilitynews.org/2018/04/23/exxon-climate-probe-new-york-massachusetts/" title="Exxon Will Continue to Fight Climate Probes by State Attorneys General">the Company’s speech. </a><pre class="DV-textContents" style="box-sizing: content-box; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 1.4em; overflow: hidden; white-space: pre-wrap; overflow-wrap: break-word; margin: 46px;"><a class="jp-relatedposts-post-a" href="https://www.climateliabilitynews.org/2018/04/23/exxon-climate-probe-new-york-massachusetts/" title="Exxon Will Continue to Fight Climate Probes by State Attorneys General">The Federal Reporter abounds with decisions holding precisely the</a></pre></div><div><a class="jp-relatedposts-post-a" href="https://www.climateliabilitynews.org/2018/04/23/exxon-climate-probe-new-york-massachusetts/" title="Exxon Will Continue to Fight Climate Probes by State Attorneys General">opposite. Consistent with that precedent, ExxonMobil has alleged that the Attorneys General,</a></div><div><a class="jp-relatedposts-post-a" href="https://www.climateliabilitynews.org/2018/04/23/exxon-climate-probe-new-york-massachusetts/" title="Exxon Will Continue to Fight Climate Probes by State Attorneys General">acting individually and as members of an unlawful conspiracy, determined that certain speech</a></div><div><a class="jp-relatedposts-post-a" href="https://www.climateliabilitynews.org/2018/04/23/exxon-climate-probe-new-york-massachusetts/" title="Exxon Will Continue to Fight Climate Probes by State Attorneys General">about climate change presented a barrier to their policy objectives, identified ExxonMobil as one</a></div><div><a class="jp-relatedposts-post-a" href="https://www.climateliabilitynews.org/2018/04/23/exxon-climate-probe-new-york-massachusetts/" title="Exxon Will Continue to Fight Climate Probes by State Attorneys General">source of that speech, launched investigations based on the thinnest of pretexts to impose costs</a></div><div><a class="jp-relatedposts-post-a" href="https://www.climateliabilitynews.org/2018/04/23/exxon-climate-probe-new-york-massachusetts/" title="Exxon Will Continue to Fight Climate Probes by State Attorneys General">and burdens on ExxonMobil for having spoken, and hoped their official actions would shift</a></div><div><a class="jp-relatedposts-post-a" href="https://www.climateliabilitynews.org/2018/04/23/exxon-climate-probe-new-york-massachusetts/" title="Exxon Will Continue to Fight Climate Probes by State Attorneys General">public discourse about climate policy. Each of those specific, concrete factual allegations is</a></div><div><a class="jp-relatedposts-post-a" href="https://www.climateliabilitynews.org/2018/04/23/exxon-climate-probe-new-york-massachusetts/" title="Exxon Will Continue to Fight Climate Probes by State Attorneys General">supported by statements and documents in the public record. A plaintiff in federal court is not</a></div><div><a class="jp-relatedposts-post-a" href="https://www.climateliabilitynews.org/2018/04/23/exxon-climate-probe-new-york-massachusetts/" title="Exxon Will Continue to Fight Climate Probes by State Attorneys General">required to do more at the pleading stage.</a><pre class="DV-textContents" style="box-sizing: content-box; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 1.4em; overflow: hidden; white-space: pre-wrap; overflow-wrap: break-word; margin: 46px;"><a class="jp-relatedposts-post-a" href="https://www.climateliabilitynews.org/2018/04/23/exxon-climate-probe-new-york-massachusetts/" title="Exxon Will Continue to Fight Climate Probes by State Attorneys General"></a></pre></div><div><a class="jp-relatedposts-post-a" href="https://www.climateliabilitynews.org/2018/04/23/exxon-climate-probe-new-york-massachusetts/" title="Exxon Will Continue to Fight Climate Probes by State Attorneys General">Faced with a pleading standard that ExxonMobil has easily satisfied, the Attorneys</a></div><div><a class="jp-relatedposts-post-a" href="https://www.climateliabilitynews.org/2018/04/23/exxon-climate-probe-new-york-massachusetts/" title="Exxon Will Continue to Fight Climate Probes by State Attorneys General">General urge this Court to apply a heightened standard of review unsupported by rule or</a></div><div><a class="jp-relatedposts-post-a" href="https://www.climateliabilitynews.org/2018/04/23/exxon-climate-probe-new-york-massachusetts/" title="Exxon Will Continue to Fight Climate Probes by State Attorneys General">precedent. It would be improper to do so. While the Attorneys General claim that their motives</a></div><div><a class="jp-relatedposts-post-a" href="https://www.climateliabilitynews.org/2018/04/23/exxon-climate-probe-new-york-massachusetts/" title="Exxon Will Continue to Fight Climate Probes by State Attorneys General">are pure and their actions justified, those assertions are entitled to no weight at this point in the</a></div><div><a class="jp-relatedposts-post-a" href="https://www.climateliabilitynews.org/2018/04/23/exxon-climate-probe-new-york-massachusetts/" title="Exxon Will Continue to Fight Climate Probes by State Attorneys General">proceedings. Were it otherwise, no action against state officials would ever proceed beyond the</a></div><div><a class="jp-relatedposts-post-a" href="https://www.climateliabilitynews.org/2018/04/23/exxon-climate-probe-new-york-massachusetts/" title="Exxon Will Continue to Fight Climate Probes by State Attorneys General">pleading stage. The Attorneys General also ask this Court to conduct fact-finding and w</a></div><div><a class="jp-relatedposts-post-a" href="https://www.climateliabilitynews.org/2018/04/23/exxon-climate-probe-new-york-massachusetts/" title="Exxon Will Continue to Fight Climate Probes by State Attorneys General">inferences in their favor, but fact-finding at the motion to dismiss stage would be inappropriate</a></div><div><a class="jp-relatedposts-post-a" href="https://www.climateliabilitynews.org/2018/04/23/exxon-climate-probe-new-york-massachusetts/" title="Exxon Will Continue to Fight Climate Probes by State Attorneys General">(particularly, as here, in the absence of discovery) and all inferences must be wn in favor of</a></div><div><a class="jp-relatedposts-post-a" href="https://www.climateliabilitynews.org/2018/04/23/exxon-climate-probe-new-york-massachusetts/" title="Exxon Will Continue to Fight Climate Probes by State Attorneys General">the plaintiff, ExxonMobil. In another futile gambit, the Attorneys General present arguments</a><a class="jp-relatedposts-post-a" href="https://www.climateliabilitynews.org/2018/04/23/exxon-climate-probe-new-york-massachusetts/" title="Exxon Will Continue to Fight Climate Probes by State Attorneys General"></a>loss<a class="jp-relatedposts-post-a" href="https://www.climateliabilitynews.org/2018/04/23/exxon-climate-probe-new-york-massachusetts/" title="Exxon Will Continue to Fight Climate Probes by State Attorneys General"></a><a href="http://www.pfaw.org/blog-posts/confirmed-judges-confirmed-fears-trump-circuit-judge-tries-to-strike-down-lobbyist-registration-and-disclosure-law-as-applied-to-unpaid-lobbyist-on-free-speech-grounds/">http://www.pfaw.org/blog-posts/confirmed-judges-confirmed-fears-trump-circuit-judge-tries-to-strike-down-lobbyist-registration-and-disclosure-law-as-applied-to-unpaid-lobbyist-on-free-speech-grounds/</a>?utm_medium=email&utm_source=nl&utm_campaign=december2018
"<a href="http://www.pfaw.org/topics/confirmed-judges-confirmed-fears/" style="box-sizing: border-box; transition-duration: 0.2s; transition-property: background-color, border-color, box-shadow, color, opacity, text-shadow, transform; transition-timing-function: linear; outline-offset: 0.111111em; text-decoration-line: none;">Confirmed Judges, Confirmed Fears”</a> is a blog series documenting the harmful impact of President Trump’s judges on Americans’ rights and liberties. <p style="box-sizing: border-box; transition-duration: 0.2s; transition-property: background-color, border-color, box-shadow, color, opacity, text-shadow, transform; transition-timing-function: linear; line-height: 1.5; margin: 0px 0px 1em;">Trump Eighth Circuit Judge David Stras dissented from an opinion by two other Republican-appointed judges in late November and argued that Missouri’s lobbyist registration and disclosure law violated the First Amendment as applied to an unpaid conservative lobbyist;">. The majority strongly disagreed with Stras’ attempt to expand the reach of decisions like Citizens United and explained that the state’s interest in transparency and public disclosure of who is trying to influence legislation clearly warranted the minimal burdens imposed by the law.<p style="box-sizing: border-box; transition-duration: 0.2s; transition-property: background-color, border-color, box-shadow, color, opacity, text-shadow, transform; transition-timing-function: linear; line-height: 1.5; margin: 0px 0px 1em; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Ronald Calzone is the president, director, and unpaid lobbyist for Missouri First, a conservative nonprofit organization that regularly lobbies members of the state legislature. He filed a First Amendment challenge to the Missouri lobbying registration and disclosure law. The law simply requires filling out a form and paying a $10 fee once each year, as well as filing additional reports concerning lobbying-related expenditures. The district court rejected his claim that the law was unconstitutional as applied to him as an unpaid lobbyist, and he appealed.<p style="box-sizing: border-box; transition-duration: 0.2s; transition-property: background-color, border-color, box-shadow, color, opacity, text-shadow, transform; transition-timing-function: linear; line-height: 1.5; margin: 0px 0px 1em;">;">In <a href="https://www.ifs.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/2018-11-28_Calzone-v-MEC-Eighth-Circuit-opinion-.pdf" style="box-sizing: border-box; transition-duration: 0.2s; transition-property: background-color, border-color, box-shadow, color, opacity, text-shadow, transform; transition-timing-function: linear; outline-offset: 0.111111em; text-decoration-line: none;">Calzone v. Summers</a>, Judges Steven Colloton and Bobby Shepherd, both appointed by President George W. Bush, affirmed the lower court decision, but Judge Stras dissented. The majority explained that it was improper to consider Calzone’s additional argument that he makes no lobbying-related expenditures, as Judge Stras did in dissent, because that argument had not been raised below or even in the court of appeals until oral argument, noting that Stras’ view to the contrary was “unfair” to the lower court and to the state. All three judges agreed that Citizens United required “exacting scrutiny” of the law as applied to Calzone, but Stras claimed that the state’s interest in “transparency” was not enough.<p style="box-sizing: border-box; transition-duration: 0.2s; transition-property: background-color, border-color, box-shadow, color, opacity, text-shadow, transform; transition-timing-function: linear; line-height: 1.5; margin: 0px 0px 1em; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">The majority strongly disagreed, explaining that based on precedent, there was a strong interest in disclosure of who is “pressuring and attempting to influence legislators.” They also noted that even unpaid lobbyists could offer “things of value” to legislators, raising the state interest in “avoiding the fact or appearance of public corruption.” The burden of complying with the law was “minimal,” they stated, particularly if Calzone did not make lobbying-related expenditures as he claimed in the court of appeals.<p style="box-sizing: border-box; transition-duration: 0.2s; transition-property: background-color, border-color, box-shadow, color, opacity, text-shadow, transform; transition-timing-function: linear; line-height: 1.5; margin: 0px 0px 1em; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Overall, the majority concluded, the state system was “precisely that which we have previously held would satisfy” the requirement that such a disclosure law have a “substantial relationship” to the state’s interests. Stras’ dissent, on the other hand, would have further extended efforts in Citizens United and similar cases to misuse the First Amendment to undermine important public disclosure laws.<div class="at-below-post addthis_tool" data-url="http://www.pfaw.org/blog-posts/confirmed-judges-confirmed-fears-trump-circuit-judge-tries-to-strike-down-lobbyist-registration-and-disclosure-law-as-applied-to-unpaid-lobbyist-on-free-speech-grounds/" style="box-sizing: border-box; transition-duration: 0.2s; transition-property: background-color, border-color, box-shadow, color, opacity, text-shadow, transform; transition-timing-function: linear; line-height: 1.5; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><div class="tags" style="box-sizing: border-box; transition-duration: 0.2s; transition-property: background-color, border-color, box-shadow, color, opacity, text-shadow, transform; transition-timing-function: linear; border-top: 5px solid rgb(239, 243, 243); margin: 2em 0px; padding-top: 1em; line-height: 1.5; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><p style="box-sizing: border-box; transition-duration: 0.2s; transition-property: background-color, border-color, box-shadow, color, opacity, text-shadow, transform; transition-timing-function: linear; line-height: 1.5; margin: 0px 0px 1em; display: inline;">Tags:

<a href="http://www.pfaw.org/topics/confirmed-judges-confirmed-fears/" style="box-sizing: border-box; transition-duration: 0.2s; transition-property: background-color, border-color, box-shadow, color, opacity, text-shadow, transform; transition-timing-function: linear; background-color: transparent; outline-offset: 0.111111em; text-decoration-line: none;">Confirmed Judges Confirmed Fears</a><a href="http://www.pfaw.org/topics/david-stras/" style="box-sizing: border-box; transition-duration: 0.2s; transition-property: background-color, border-color, box-shadow, color, opacity, text-shadow, transform; transition-timing-function: linear; background-color: transparent; outline-offset: 0.111111em; text-decoration-line: none;">David Stras</a><a href="http://www.pfaw.org/topics/fighting-big-money-in-politics/" style="box-sizing: border-box; transition-duration: 0.2s; transition-property: background-color, border-color, box-shadow, color, opacity, text-shadow, transform; transition-timing-function: linear; background-color: transparent; outline-offset: 0.111111em; text-decoration-line: none;">Fighting Big Money in Politics</a><a href="http://www.pfaw.org/topics/lobbying/" style="box-sizing: border-box; transition-duration: 0.2s; transition-property: background-color, border-color, box-shadow, color, opacity, text-shadow, transform; transition-timing-function: linear; background-color: transparent; outline-offset: 0.111111em; text-decoration-line: none;">lobbying</a><a href="http://www.pfaw.org/topics/money-in-politics/" style="box-sizing: border-box; transition-duration: 0.2s; transition-property: background-color, border-color, box-shadow, color, opacity, text-shadow, transform; transition-timing-function: linear; background-color: transparent; outline-offset: 0.111111em; text-decoration-line: none;">money in politics</a></div></div><div></div><div>
</div><div><a href="https://grist.org/article/exxon-says-climate-lawsuits-violate-its-right-to-free-speech-seriously/">https://grist.org/article/exxon-says-climate-lawsuits-violate-its-right-to-free-speech-seriously/</a></div><div>
</div><div><div class="single-article-header" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 25px 0px; padding: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><h1 class="page-title" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 1rem 0px; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.2; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility;">Exxon says climate lawsuits violate its right to free speech. Seriously.</h1><div class="row collapse article-meta" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px auto 20px; padding: 0px; max-width: 62.5rem; width: 660px; line-height: normal;"><div class="small-12 columns" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; width: 660px; float: left; position: relative;"><div class="article-byline-and-date" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">By <a href="https://grist.org/author/zteirstein/" title="Posts by Zoya Teirstein" class="author url fn" rel="author" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; line-height: inherit; border-bottom: 0.0625rem solid rgb(7, 96, 126); transition: border-color 0.15s ease-out 0s; text-decoration-line: none !important;">Zoya Teirstein</a> on Jun 19, 2018</div></div></div></div><div class="ad ad--small-banner" id="tablet-top-banner" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 2.5rem auto; padding: 0px; text-align: center;"><div class="article-body" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 20px; padding: 0px;"><aside id="aside-407305" class="inline-aside inline-aside--407305 inline-aside--subscription-ask-post-top aside--simple" style="background: none; text-align: left; box-sizing: border-box; border-style: solid none; border-top-width: 1px; border-right-width: initial; border-bottom-width: 1px; border-left-width: initial; border-top-color: rgb(216, 216, 216); border-right-color: initial; border-bottom-color: rgb(216, 216, 216); border-left-color: initial; margin-bottom: 1.25rem; padding: 1.25rem; border-image: initial;">Just a short time ago, it seemed like Exxon might finally be <a href="https://apps.publicintegrity.org/united-states-of-petroleum/venue-of-last-resort/" style="background-color: transparent; box-sizing: border-box; line-height: inherit; border-bottom: 0.0625rem solid rgb(7, 96, 126); transition: border-color 0.15s ease-out 0s; text-decoration-line: none !important;">forced to reckon</a> with the harm it had inflicted through the digging up, selling, and burning of fossil fuels.<span class="far fa-envelope-o" style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 1; -webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; display: inline-block; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; text-rendering: auto; margin-top: 0px;" /></aside>A wave of cities led by San Francisco and Oakland <a href="https://grist.org/article/fossil-fuels-are-the-problem-say-fossil-fuel-companies-being-sued/" style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: inherit; border-bottom: 0.0625rem solid rgb(7, 96, 126); transition: border-color 0.15s ease-out 0s; text-decoration-line: none !important;">filed suit</a> against Exxon and other major polluters last year, alleging that the companies had purposefully misled the public about the effects of climate change in order to keep profits high. In March, a federal judge handed the California cities a small win: the chance to <a href="https://grist.org/article/climate-change-will-have-its-scopes-monkey-trial-this-week/" style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: inherit; border-bottom: 0.0625rem solid rgb(7, 96, 126); transition: border-color 0.15s ease-out 0s; text-decoration-line: none !important;">publicly debate polluters</a> in court about their role in denying climate science.But if we’ve learned anything from the way the tobacco industry <a href="http://www.who.int/tobacco/media/en/TobaccoExplained.pdf" style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: inherit; border-bottom: 0.0625rem solid rgb(7, 96, 126); transition: border-color 0.15s ease-out 0s; text-decoration-line: none !important;">rapidly went on the offensive</a> when it was accused of peddling cancer sticks, it’s that getting industry to fess up to its wrongdoings is easier said than done. And Exxon, it seems, will do anything to shift the blame from its own shoulders, even if that means spinning an <a href="https://www.houstonchronicle.com/business/energy/article/Inside-Exxon-Mobil-s-fight-to-stop-climate-12993891.php" style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: inherit; border-bottom: 0.0625rem solid rgb(7, 96, 126); transition: border-color 0.15s ease-out 0s; text-decoration-line: none !important;">entirely new narrative</a> around who the real victim is.After the California cities filed suit, Exxon brought <a href="https://www.scribd.com/document/368760851/Rule-202-Petition-Re-CA" style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: inherit; border-bottom: 0.0625rem solid rgb(7, 96, 126); transition: border-color 0.15s ease-out 0s; text-decoration-line: none !important;">a petition</a> before the Texas 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals claiming the lawsuits were part of a conspiracy intended to waylay the company’s right to free speech and force it to change its position on climate change. Yes, you read that correctly. Exxon argued that the cities were trying to make the company agree to a number of truths about climate change, which, in effect, violated Exxon’s First Amendment rights to say whatever the hell it wants about climate change.Yeah, sounds crazy! But the Texas judge, R.H. Wallace Jr., <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/legalnewsline/2018/04/27/judge-ca-cities-alleging-doom-in-climate-change-lawsuits-sold-investors-a-different-story/#570142e310e1" style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: inherit; border-bottom: 0.0625rem solid rgb(7, 96, 126); transition: border-color 0.15s ease-out 0s; text-decoration-line: none !important;">bought the argument</a> and handed Exxon a victory in April. That means the company can now grill California city officials about whether the climate suits, from the Bay to New York City, have been one big conspiracy to violate the company’s right to free speech.Michael Burger, Executive Director of Columbia University’s Sabin Center for Climate Change Law, doesn’t think Exxon’s free speech argument holds up under scrutiny. Exxon <a href="http://climatecasechart.com/case/exxon-mobil-corp-v-healey/" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; line-height: inherit; border-bottom: 0.0625rem solid rgb(7, 96, 126); transition: border-color 0.15s ease-out 0s; text-decoration-line: none !important;">already tried</a> a similar tactic in a New York court. Former Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, who recently resigned after four women accused him of sexual assault, started investigating the company over climate change in 2015. Exxon’s lawyers argued Schneiderman tried to “silence and intimidate one side of the public policy debate on how to address climate change” by launching the probe.;">The New York judge <a href="http://climatecasechart.com/case/exxon-mobil-corp-v-healey/" style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: inherit; border-bottom: 0.0625rem solid rgb(7, 96, 126); transition: border-color 0.15s ease-out 0s; text-decoration-line: none !important;">dismissed the case</a> this year. When Exxon tried to edit, or “amend,” its original complaint, the judge denied the amendment “as futile,” which is a fancy way of saying the judge kicked Exxon in the gnads. The fact that Exxon already tried and failed to invoke its First Amendment rights doesn’t bode well for the company’s latest attempt in California. “The idea that these lawsuits could infringe on First Amendment rights is, as the judge in New York said, implausible,” Burger says.So, while the Texas judge gave Exxon a small window of opportunity to question California officials about the alleged “conspiracy,” Burger says that doesn’t mean it’ll turn into a full-blown court case. California has already <a href="https://www.expressnews.com/business/eagle-ford-energy/article/Inside-Exxon-Mobil-s-fight-to-stop-climate-12994450.php" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; line-height: inherit; border-bottom: 0.0625rem solid rgb(7, 96, 126); transition: border-color 0.15s ease-out 0s; text-decoration-line: none !important;">appealed</a> Judge Wallace Jr.’s decision.The First Amendment claim isn’t an entirely new invention — big companies have <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/wlf/2015/09/11/san-franciscos-sweetened-beverage-warning-mandate-and-ad-ban-tread-on-first-amendment/#455223b1ec95" style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: inherit; border-bottom: 0.0625rem solid rgb(7, 96, 126); transition: border-color 0.15s ease-out 0s; text-decoration-line: none !important;">asserted such claims</a> before, says Peter Lehner, former chief of the Environmental Protection Bureau of the New York State Attorney General’s office. But Exxon’s argument that the climate lawsuits are a big conspiracy, he says, is based on “flimsy ground.”First of all, attorneys general communicate with each other often. And second of all, he says, “If the company is lying to their shareholders and to their consumers, then that is fraud.” It all comes back to the underlying issue: If California can prove Exxon knew about climate change and lied to the public about it, the company probably won’t be able to get out of an investigation by crying free speech. Why? Because the First Amendment doesn’t protect liars!As for why Exxon might be pulling out the flawed free speech argument again, Burger raises one possibility: “It may well be that Exxon is threatening to bring a lawsuit in an effort to intimidate those [California] officials or enact some form of retribution.”A major oil company acting like a huge bully? Nah, doesn’t sound like good ol’ Exxon. <a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2016/12/exxon_mobil_is_the_worst_oil_company.html" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; line-height: inherit; border-bottom: 0.0625rem solid rgb(7, 96, 126); transition: border-color 0.15s ease-out 0s; text-decoration-line: none !important;">Psyche</a>!</div></div><div>BUT NOTE CTR-SUIT ON CITY FRAUD?!</div><div>=</div><div><div class="g" style="line-height: 1.2; margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 26px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><div data-hveid="CAkQAA" data-ved="2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0QFSgAMAB6BAgJEAA"><div class="rc" style="position: relative;"><div class="r" style="display: inline; margin: 0px;"><a href="https://grist.org/article/exxon-says-climate-lawsuits-violate-its-right-to-free-speech-seriously/" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://grist.org/article/exxon-says-climate-lawsuits-violate-its-right-to-free-speech-seriously/&ved=2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0QFjAAegQICRAB" style="cursor: pointer; text-decoration-line: none;" /><h3 class="LC20lb" style="font-weight: normal; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; display: inline-block;"><a href="https://grist.org/article/exxon-says-climate-lawsuits-violate-its-right-to-free-speech-seriously/" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://grist.org/article/exxon-says-climate-lawsuits-violate-its-right-to-free-speech-seriously/&ved=2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0QFjAAegQICRAB" style="cursor: pointer; text-decoration-line: none;"></a><a href="https://grist.org/article/exxon-says-climate-lawsuits-violate-its-right-to-free-speech-seriously/" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://grist.org/article/exxon-says-climate-lawsuits-violate-its-right-to-free-speech-seriously/&ved=2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0QFjAAegQICRAB" style="cursor: pointer; text-decoration-line: none;" /><a href="https://grist.org/article/exxon-says-climate-lawsuits-violate-its-right-to-free-speech-seriously/" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://grist.org/article/exxon-says-climate-lawsuits-violate-its-right-to-free-speech-seriously/&ved=2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0QFjAAegQICRAB" style="cursor: pointer; text-decoration-line: none;" /><a href="https://grist.org/article/exxon-says-climate-lawsuits-violate-its-right-to-free-speech-seriously/" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://grist.org/article/exxon-says-climate-lawsuits-violate-its-right-to-free-speech-seriously/&ved=2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0QFjAAegQICRAB" style="cursor: pointer; text-decoration-line: none;" /><a href="https://grist.org/article/exxon-says-climate-lawsuits-violate-its-right-to-free-speech-seriously/" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://grist.org/article/exxon-says-climate-lawsuits-violate-its-right-to-free-speech-seriously/&ved=2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0QFjAAegQICRAB" style="cursor: pointer; text-decoration-line: none;" /><a href="https://grist.org/article/exxon-says-climate-lawsuits-violate-its-right-to-free-speech-seriously/" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://grist.org/article/exxon-says-climate-lawsuits-violate-its-right-to-free-speech-seriously/&ved=2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0QFjAAegQICRAB" style="cursor: pointer; text-decoration-line: none;" /><a href="https://grist.org/article/exxon-says-climate-lawsuits-violate-its-right-to-free-speech-seriously/" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://grist.org/article/exxon-says-climate-lawsuits-violate-its-right-to-free-speech-seriously/&ved=2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0QFjAAegQICRAB" style="cursor: pointer; text-decoration-line: none;">Exxon says climate lawsuits violate its right to free speech. Seriously ...</a></h3>
<div class="TbwUpd" style="padding-bottom: 3px; padding-top: 2px; display: inline-block;"><cite class="iUh30" style="font-style: normal; padding-top: 1px;">https://grist.org/.../exxon-says-climate-lawsuits-violate-its-right-to-free-speech-seriousl...</cite></div><div class="action-menu ab_ctl" style="display: inline; position: relative; margin: 1px 3px 0px; user-select: none; vertical-align: middle;"><a class="GHDvEf ab_button" href="https://www.google.com/search?q=exxon+first+1st+amendment+lie&oq=exxon+first+1st+amendment+lie&aqs=chrome..69i57.10515j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#" id="am-b0" aria-label="Result Options" aria-expanded="false" aria-haspopup="true" role="button" jsaction="m.tdd;keydown:m.hbke;keypress:m.mskpe" data-ved="2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0Q7B0wAHoECAkQAg" style="border-radius: 0px; cursor: default; font-weight: bold; height: 12px; line-height: 27px; margin: 1px 0px 2px; min-width: 0px; padding: 0px; text-align: center; transition: none 0s ease 0s; user-select: none; background-image: none; border: 0px; box-shadow: 0px 0px 0px 0px; filter: none; width: 13px; text-decoration-line: none; display: inline-block;"><span class="mn-dwn-arw" style="text-align: left; border-color: rgb(0, 102, 33) transparent; border-style: solid; border-width: 5px 4px 0px; width: 0px; height: 0px; margin-left: 3px; top: 7.5px; margin-top: -4px; position: absolute; left: 0px;" /></a><div class="action-menu-panel ab_dropdown" role="menu" tabindex="-1" jsaction="keydown:m.hdke;mouseover:m.hdhne;mouseout:m.hdhue" data-ved="2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0QqR8wAHoECAkQAw" style="background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; border: 1px solid rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.2); padding: 0px; position: absolute; right: auto; top: 12px; white-space: nowrap; z-index: 3; transition: opacity 0.218s ease 0s; box-shadow: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.2) 0px 2px 4px; left: 0px; visibility: hidden;"><ol style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px;"><li class="action-menu-item ab_dropdownitem" role="menuitem" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; list-style: none; user-select: none; cursor: pointer;"><a class="fl" href="https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:VebaciGPNDIJ:https://grist.org/article/exxon-says-climate-lawsuits-violate-its-right-to-free-speech-seriously/+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search%3Fq%3Dcache:VebaciGPNDIJ:https://grist.org/article/exxon-says-climate-lawsuits-violate-its-right-to-free-speech-seriously/%2B%26cd%3D1%26hl%3Den%26ct%3Dclnk%26gl%3Dus&ved=2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0QIDAAegQICRAE" style="text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer; display: block; padding: 7px 18px; outline: 0px;" /></li></ol></div></div></div><div class="s" style="max-width: 48em; line-height: 18px;"><a class="fl" href="https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:VebaciGPNDIJ:https://grist.org/article/exxon-says-climate-lawsuits-violate-its-right-to-free-speech-seriously/+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search%3Fq%3Dcache:VebaciGPNDIJ:https://grist.org/article/exxon-says-climate-lawsuits-violate-its-right-to-free-speech-seriously/%2B%26cd%3D1%26hl%3Den%26ct%3Dclnk%26gl%3Dus&ved=2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0QIDAAegQICRAE" style="text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer; display: block; padding: 7px 18px; outline: 0px;"></a><a class="fl" href="https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:VebaciGPNDIJ:https://grist.org/article/exxon-says-climate-lawsuits-violate-its-right-to-free-speech-seriously/+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search%3Fq%3Dcache:VebaciGPNDIJ:https://grist.org/article/exxon-says-climate-lawsuits-violate-its-right-to-free-speech-seriously/%2B%26cd%3D1%26hl%3Den%26ct%3Dclnk%26gl%3Dus&ved=2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0QIDAAegQICRAE" style="text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer; display: block; padding: 7px 18px; outline: 0px;"></a><a class="fl" href="https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:VebaciGPNDIJ:https://grist.org/article/exxon-says-climate-lawsuits-violate-its-right-to-free-speech-seriously/+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search%3Fq%3Dcache:VebaciGPNDIJ:https://grist.org/article/exxon-says-climate-lawsuits-violate-its-right-to-free-speech-seriously/%2B%26cd%3D1%26hl%3Den%26ct%3Dclnk%26gl%3Dus&ved=2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0QIDAAegQICRAE" style="text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer; display: block; padding: 7px 18px; outline: 0px;"></a><a class="fl" href="https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:VebaciGPNDIJ:https://grist.org/article/exxon-says-climate-lawsuits-violate-its-right-to-free-speech-seriously/+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search%3Fq%3Dcache:VebaciGPNDIJ:https://grist.org/article/exxon-says-climate-lawsuits-violate-its-right-to-free-speech-seriously/%2B%26cd%3D1%26hl%3Den%26ct%3Dclnk%26gl%3Dus&ved=2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0QIDAAegQICRAE" style="text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer; display: block; padding: 7px 18px; outline: 0px;"></a><a class="fl" href="https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:VebaciGPNDIJ:https://grist.org/article/exxon-says-climate-lawsuits-violate-its-right-to-free-speech-seriously/+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search%3Fq%3Dcache:VebaciGPNDIJ:https://grist.org/article/exxon-says-climate-lawsuits-violate-its-right-to-free-speech-seriously/%2B%26cd%3D1%26hl%3Den%26ct%3Dclnk%26gl%3Dus&ved=2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0QIDAAegQICRAE" style="text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer; display: block; padding: 7px 18px; outline: 0px;"></a><a class="fl" href="https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:VebaciGPNDIJ:https://grist.org/article/exxon-says-climate-lawsuits-violate-its-right-to-free-speech-seriously/+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search%3Fq%3Dcache:VebaciGPNDIJ:https://grist.org/article/exxon-says-climate-lawsuits-violate-its-right-to-free-speech-seriously/%2B%26cd%3D1%26hl%3Den%26ct%3Dclnk%26gl%3Dus&ved=2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0QIDAAegQICRAE" style="text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer; display: block; padding: 7px 18px; outline: 0px;"></a><a class="fl" href="https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:VebaciGPNDIJ:https://grist.org/article/exxon-says-climate-lawsuits-violate-its-right-to-free-speech-seriously/+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search%3Fq%3Dcache:VebaciGPNDIJ:https://grist.org/article/exxon-says-climate-lawsuits-violate-its-right-to-free-speech-seriously/%2B%26cd%3D1%26hl%3Den%26ct%3Dclnk%26gl%3Dus&ved=2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0QIDAAegQICRAE" style="text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer; display: block; padding: 7px 18px; outline: 0px;"></a><a class="fl" href="https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:VebaciGPNDIJ:https://grist.org/article/exxon-says-climate-lawsuits-violate-its-right-to-free-speech-seriously/+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search%3Fq%3Dcache:VebaciGPNDIJ:https://grist.org/article/exxon-says-climate-lawsuits-violate-its-right-to-free-speech-seriously/%2B%26cd%3D1%26hl%3Den%26ct%3Dclnk%26gl%3Dus&ved=2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0QIDAAegQICRAE" style="text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer; display: block; padding: 7px 18px; outline: 0px;">Jun 19, 2018 - “The idea that these lawsuits could infringe on First Amendment ... If California can proveExxon knew about climate change and lied to the ...</a><div class="TXwUJf" style=""><a class="fl" href="https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:VebaciGPNDIJ:https://grist.org/article/exxon-says-climate-lawsuits-violate-its-right-to-free-speech-seriously/+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search%3Fq%3Dcache:VebaciGPNDIJ:https://grist.org/article/exxon-says-climate-lawsuits-violate-its-right-to-free-speech-seriously/%2B%26cd%3D1%26hl%3Den%26ct%3Dclnk%26gl%3Dus&ved=2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0QIDAAegQICRAE" style="text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer; display: block; padding: 7px 18px; outline: 0px;">Missing: <s>1st</s> ?| ?Must include: ?</a><a class="fl" href="https://www.google.com/search?q=exxon+first+%221st%22+amendment+lie&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0Q5t4CMAB6BAgJEAc" style="text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer;">1st</a></div></div></div></div></div><div class="g" style="line-height: 1.2; margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 26px;"><div data-hveid="CAgQAA" data-ved="2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0QFSgAMAF6BAgIEAA" style=""><div class="rc" style="position: relative;"><div class="r" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); display: inline; margin: 0px;"><a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/08/does-the-first-amendment-protect-deliberate-lies/496004/" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/08/does-the-first-amendment-protect-deliberate-lies/496004/&ved=2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0QFjABegQICBAB" style="cursor: pointer; text-decoration-line: none;" /><h3 class="LC20lb" style="font-weight: normal; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; display: inline-block;"><a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/08/does-the-first-amendment-protect-deliberate-lies/496004/" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/08/does-the-first-amendment-protect-deliberate-lies/496004/&ved=2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0QFjABegQICBAB" style="cursor: pointer; text-decoration-line: none;"></a><a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/08/does-the-first-amendment-protect-deliberate-lies/496004/" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/08/does-the-first-amendment-protect-deliberate-lies/496004/&ved=2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0QFjABegQICBAB" style="cursor: pointer; text-decoration-line: none;" /><a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/08/does-the-first-amendment-protect-deliberate-lies/496004/" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/08/does-the-first-amendment-protect-deliberate-lies/496004/&ved=2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0QFjABegQICBAB" style="cursor: pointer; text-decoration-line: none;" /><a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/08/does-the-first-amendment-protect-deliberate-lies/496004/" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/08/does-the-first-amendment-protect-deliberate-lies/496004/&ved=2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0QFjABegQICBAB" style="cursor: pointer; text-decoration-line: none;" /><a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/08/does-the-first-amendment-protect-deliberate-lies/496004/" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/08/does-the-first-amendment-protect-deliberate-lies/496004/&ved=2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0QFjABegQICBAB" style="cursor: pointer; text-decoration-line: none;" /><a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/08/does-the-first-amendment-protect-deliberate-lies/496004/" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/08/does-the-first-amendment-protect-deliberate-lies/496004/&ved=2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0QFjABegQICBAB" style="cursor: pointer; text-decoration-line: none;" /><a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/08/does-the-first-amendment-protect-deliberate-lies/496004/" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/08/does-the-first-amendment-protect-deliberate-lies/496004/&ved=2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0QFjABegQICBAB" style="cursor: pointer; text-decoration-line: none;" /><a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/08/does-the-first-amendment-protect-deliberate-lies/496004/" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/08/does-the-first-amendment-protect-deliberate-lies/496004/&ved=2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0QFjABegQICBAB" style="cursor: pointer; text-decoration-line: none;" /><a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/08/does-the-first-amendment-protect-deliberate-lies/496004/" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/08/does-the-first-amendment-protect-deliberate-lies/496004/&ved=2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0QFjABegQICBAB" style="cursor: pointer; text-decoration-line: none;">Donald Trump Thinks the First Amendment Protects Deliberate Lies ...</a></h3>
<div class="TbwUpd" style="padding-bottom: 3px; padding-top: 2px; display: inline-block;"><cite class="iUh30" style="font-style: normal; padding-top: 1px;">https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/...first-amendment...lies/496004/</cite></div><div class="action-menu ab_ctl" style="display: inline; position: relative; margin: 1px 3px 0px; user-select: none; vertical-align: middle;"><a class="GHDvEf ab_button" href="https://www.google.com/search?q=exxon+first+1st+amendment+lie&oq=exxon+first+1st+amendment+lie&aqs=chrome..69i57.10515j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#" id="am-b1" aria-label="Result Options" aria-expanded="false" aria-haspopup="true" role="button" jsaction="m.tdd;keydown:m.hbke;keypress:m.mskpe" data-ved="2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0Q7B0wAXoECAgQAg" style="border-radius: 0px; cursor: default; font-weight: bold; height: 12px; line-height: 27px; margin: 1px 0px 2px; min-width: 0px; padding: 0px; text-align: center; transition: none 0s ease 0s; user-select: none; background-image: none; border: 0px; box-shadow: 0px 0px 0px 0px; filter: none; width: 13px; text-decoration-line: none; display: inline-block;"><span class="mn-dwn-arw" style="text-align: left; border-color: rgb(0, 102, 33) transparent; border-style: solid; border-width: 5px 4px 0px; width: 0px; height: 0px; margin-left: 3px; top: 7.5px; margin-top: -4px; position: absolute; left: 0px;" /></a><div class="action-menu-panel ab_dropdown" role="menu" tabindex="-1" jsaction="keydown:m.hdke;mouseover:m.hdhne;mouseout:m.hdhue" data-ved="2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0QqR8wAXoECAgQAw" style="background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; border: 1px solid rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.2); padding: 0px; position: absolute; right: auto; top: 12px; white-space: nowrap; z-index: 3; transition: opacity 0.218s ease 0s; box-shadow: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.2) 0px 2px 4px; left: 0px; visibility: hidden;"><ol style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px;"><li class="action-menu-item ab_dropdownitem" role="menuitem" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; list-style: none; user-select: none; cursor: pointer;"><a class="fl" href="https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:8R53zIFgcxwJ:https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/08/does-the-first-amendment-protect-deliberate-lies/496004/+&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search%3Fq%3Dcache:8R53zIFgcxwJ:https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/08/does-the-first-amendment-protect-deliberate-lies/496004/%2B%26cd%3D2%26hl%3Den%26ct%3Dclnk%26gl%3Dus&ved=2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0QIDABegQICBAE" style="text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer; display: block; padding: 7px 18px; outline: 0px;" /></li><li class="action-menu-item ab_dropdownitem" role="menuitem" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; list-style: none; user-select: none; cursor: pointer;"><a class="fl" href="https://www.google.com/search?q=related:https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/08/does-the-first-amendment-protect-deliberate-lies/496004/+exxon+first+1st+amendment+lie&tbo=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0QHzABegQICBAF" style="text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer; display: block; padding: 7px 18px; outline: 0px;" /></li></ol></div></div></div><div class="s" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); max-width: 48em; line-height: 18px;"><a class="fl" href="https://www.google.com/search?q=related:https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/08/does-the-first-amendment-protect-deliberate-lies/496004/+exxon+first+1st+amendment+lie&tbo=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0QHzABegQICBAF" style="text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer; display: block; padding: 7px 18px; outline: 0px;"></a><a class="fl" href="https://www.google.com/search?q=related:https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/08/does-the-first-amendment-protect-deliberate-lies/496004/+exxon+first+1st+amendment+lie&tbo=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0QHzABegQICBAF" style="text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer; display: block; padding: 7px 18px; outline: 0px;"></a><a class="fl" href="https://www.google.com/search?q=related:https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/08/does-the-first-amendment-protect-deliberate-lies/496004/+exxon+first+1st+amendment+lie&tbo=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0QHzABegQICBAF" style="text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer; display: block; padding: 7px 18px; outline: 0px;"></a><a class="fl" href="https://www.google.com/search?q=related:https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/08/does-the-first-amendment-protect-deliberate-lies/496004/+exxon+first+1st+amendment+lie&tbo=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0QHzABegQICBAF" style="text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer; display: block; padding: 7px 18px; outline: 0px;"></a><a class="fl" href="https://www.google.com/search?q=related:https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/08/does-the-first-amendment-protect-deliberate-lies/496004/+exxon+first+1st+amendment+lie&tbo=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0QHzABegQICBAF" style="text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer; display: block; padding: 7px 18px; outline: 0px;"></a><a class="fl" href="https://www.google.com/search?q=related:https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/08/does-the-first-amendment-protect-deliberate-lies/496004/+exxon+first+1st+amendment+lie&tbo=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0QHzABegQICBAF" style="text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer; display: block; padding: 7px 18px; outline: 0px;"></a><a class="fl" href="https://www.google.com/search?q=related:https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/08/does-the-first-amendment-protect-deliberate-lies/496004/+exxon+first+1st+amendment+lie&tbo=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0QHzABegQICBAF" style="text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer; display: block; padding: 7px 18px; outline: 0px;">Aug 16, 2016 - Does the First Amendment Protect Deliberate Lies? ... The idea that lies are part of “freedom of speech” or “of the press” seems wrong.</a><div class="TXwUJf" style=""><a class="fl" href="https://www.google.com/search?q=related:https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/08/does-the-first-amendment-protect-deliberate-lies/496004/+exxon+first+1st+amendment+lie&tbo=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0QHzABegQICBAF" style="text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer; display: block; padding: 7px 18px; outline: 0px;">Missing: <s>exxon</s> ?| ?Must include: ?</a><a class="fl" href="https://www.google.com/search?q=%22exxon%22+first+1st+amendment+lie&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0Q5t4CMAF6BAgIEAg" style="text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer;">exxon</a></div></div><div data-base-uri="/search?lei=0lTXW_WTOYWq_Qa_yK3oDg" jsl="$t t--ddbPTeIsNI;$x 0;" class="r-iBYc_rC4YbDQ" data-ved="2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0Q2Z0BMAF6BAgIEAk" style=""><div class="g" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: 1.2; margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 26px;"><div data-hveid="CAcQAA" data-ved="2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0QFSgAMAJ6BAgHEAA"><div class="rc" style="position: relative;"><div class="r" style="display: inline; margin: 0px;"><a href="http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-mckibben-exxon-proxy-20170608-story.html" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-mckibben-exxon-proxy-20170608-story.html&ved=2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0QFjACegQIBxAB" style="cursor: pointer; text-decoration-line: none;" /><h3 class="LC20lb" style="font-weight: normal; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; display: inline-block;"><a href="http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-mckibben-exxon-proxy-20170608-story.html" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-mckibben-exxon-proxy-20170608-story.html&ved=2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0QFjACegQIBxAB" style="cursor: pointer; text-decoration-line: none;"></a><a href="http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-mckibben-exxon-proxy-20170608-story.html" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-mckibben-exxon-proxy-20170608-story.html&ved=2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0QFjACegQIBxAB" style="cursor: pointer; text-decoration-line: none;" /><a href="http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-mckibben-exxon-proxy-20170608-story.html" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-mckibben-exxon-proxy-20170608-story.html&ved=2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0QFjACegQIBxAB" style="cursor: pointer; text-decoration-line: none;" /><a href="http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-mckibben-exxon-proxy-20170608-story.html" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-mckibben-exxon-proxy-20170608-story.html&ved=2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0QFjACegQIBxAB" style="cursor: pointer; text-decoration-line: none;" /><a href="http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-mckibben-exxon-proxy-20170608-story.html" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-mckibben-exxon-proxy-20170608-story.html&ved=2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0QFjACegQIBxAB" style="cursor: pointer; text-decoration-line: none;" /><a href="http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-mckibben-exxon-proxy-20170608-story.html" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-mckibben-exxon-proxy-20170608-story.html&ved=2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0QFjACegQIBxAB" style="cursor: pointer; text-decoration-line: none;" /><a href="http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-mckibben-exxon-proxy-20170608-story.html" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-mckibben-exxon-proxy-20170608-story.html&ved=2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0QFjACegQIBxAB" style="cursor: pointer; text-decoration-line: none;" /><a href="http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-mckibben-exxon-proxy-20170608-story.html" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-mckibben-exxon-proxy-20170608-story.html&ved=2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0QFjACegQIBxAB" style="cursor: pointer; text-decoration-line: none;">Did Exxon lie to its investors as well as the public? - Los Angeles Times</a></h3>
<div class="TbwUpd" style="padding-bottom: 3px; padding-top: 2px; display: inline-block;"><cite class="iUh30" style="font-style: normal; padding-top: 1px;">www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-mckibben-exxon-proxy-20170608-story.html</cite></div><div class="action-menu ab_ctl" style="display: inline; position: relative; margin: 1px 3px 0px; user-select: none; vertical-align: middle;"><a class="GHDvEf ab_button" href="https://www.google.com/search?q=exxon+first+1st+amendment+lie&oq=exxon+first+1st+amendment+lie&aqs=chrome..69i57.10515j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#" id="am-b2" aria-label="Result Options" aria-expanded="false" aria-haspopup="true" role="button" jsaction="m.tdd;keydown:m.hbke;keypress:m.mskpe" data-ved="2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0Q7B0wAnoECAcQAg" style="border-radius: 0px; cursor: default; font-weight: bold; height: 12px; line-height: 27px; margin: 1px 0px 2px; min-width: 0px; padding: 0px; text-align: center; transition: none 0s ease 0s; user-select: none; background-image: none; border: 0px; box-shadow: 0px 0px 0px 0px; filter: none; width: 13px; text-decoration-line: none; display: inline-block;"><span class="mn-dwn-arw" style="text-align: left; border-color: rgb(0, 102, 33) transparent; border-style: solid; border-width: 5px 4px 0px; width: 0px; height: 0px; margin-left: 3px; top: 7.5px; margin-top: -4px; position: absolute; left: 0px;" /></a><div class="action-menu-panel ab_dropdown" role="menu" tabindex="-1" jsaction="keydown:m.hdke;mouseover:m.hdhne;mouseout:m.hdhue" data-ved="2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0QqR8wAnoECAcQAw" style="background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; border: 1px solid rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.2); padding: 0px; position: absolute; right: auto; top: 12px; white-space: nowrap; z-index: 3; transition: opacity 0.218s ease 0s; box-shadow: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.2) 0px 2px 4px; left: 0px; visibility: hidden;"><ol style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px;"><li class="action-menu-item ab_dropdownitem" role="menuitem" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; list-style: none; user-select: none; cursor: pointer;"><a class="fl" href="http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:ya6M2rlQZCoJ:www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-mckibben-exxon-proxy-20170608-story.html+&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search%3Fq%3Dcache:ya6M2rlQZCoJ:www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-mckibben-exxon-proxy-20170608-story.html%2B%26cd%3D3%26hl%3Den%26ct%3Dclnk%26gl%3Dus&ved=2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0QIDACegQIBxAE" style="text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer; display: block; padding: 7px 18px; outline: 0px;" /></li></ol></div></div></div><div class="s" style="max-width: 48em; line-height: 18px;"><a class="fl" href="http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:ya6M2rlQZCoJ:www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-mckibben-exxon-proxy-20170608-story.html+&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search%3Fq%3Dcache:ya6M2rlQZCoJ:www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-mckibben-exxon-proxy-20170608-story.html%2B%26cd%3D3%26hl%3Den%26ct%3Dclnk%26gl%3Dus&ved=2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0QIDACegQIBxAE" style="text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer; display: block; padding: 7px 18px; outline: 0px;"></a><a class="fl" href="http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:ya6M2rlQZCoJ:www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-mckibben-exxon-proxy-20170608-story.html+&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search%3Fq%3Dcache:ya6M2rlQZCoJ:www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-mckibben-exxon-proxy-20170608-story.html%2B%26cd%3D3%26hl%3Den%26ct%3Dclnk%26gl%3Dus&ved=2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0QIDACegQIBxAE" style="text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer; display: block; padding: 7px 18px; outline: 0px;"></a><a class="fl" href="http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:ya6M2rlQZCoJ:www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-mckibben-exxon-proxy-20170608-story.html+&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search%3Fq%3Dcache:ya6M2rlQZCoJ:www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-mckibben-exxon-proxy-20170608-story.html%2B%26cd%3D3%26hl%3Den%26ct%3Dclnk%26gl%3Dus&ved=2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0QIDACegQIBxAE" style="text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer; display: block; padding: 7px 18px; outline: 0px;"></a><a class="fl" href="http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:ya6M2rlQZCoJ:www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-mckibben-exxon-proxy-20170608-story.html+&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search%3Fq%3Dcache:ya6M2rlQZCoJ:www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-mckibben-exxon-proxy-20170608-story.html%2B%26cd%3D3%26hl%3Den%26ct%3Dclnk%26gl%3Dus&ved=2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0QIDACegQIBxAE" style="text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer; display: block; padding: 7px 18px; outline: 0px;"></a><a class="fl" href="http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:ya6M2rlQZCoJ:www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-mckibben-exxon-proxy-20170608-story.html+&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search%3Fq%3Dcache:ya6M2rlQZCoJ:www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-mckibben-exxon-proxy-20170608-story.html%2B%26cd%3D3%26hl%3Den%26ct%3Dclnk%26gl%3Dus&ved=2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0QIDACegQIBxAE" style="text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer; display: block; padding: 7px 18px; outline: 0px;"></a><a class="fl" href="http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:ya6M2rlQZCoJ:www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-mckibben-exxon-proxy-20170608-story.html+&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search%3Fq%3Dcache:ya6M2rlQZCoJ:www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-mckibben-exxon-proxy-20170608-story.html%2B%26cd%3D3%26hl%3Den%26ct%3Dclnk%26gl%3Dus&ved=2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0QIDACegQIBxAE" style="text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer; display: block; padding: 7px 18px; outline: 0px;"></a><a class="fl" href="http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:ya6M2rlQZCoJ:www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-mckibben-exxon-proxy-20170608-story.html+&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search%3Fq%3Dcache:ya6M2rlQZCoJ:www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-mckibben-exxon-proxy-20170608-story.html%2B%26cd%3D3%26hl%3Den%26ct%3Dclnk%26gl%3Dus&ved=2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0QIDACegQIBxAE" style="text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer; display: block; padding: 7px 18px; outline: 0px;">Jun 8, 2017 - Former Exxon president and current Secretary of State Rex Tillerson on June 2, at the ... the Empire State's attorney general, laid out the first real fruits of his ... But telling that kind of lie may be protected by the 1st Amendment; ...</a></div></div></div></div><div class="g" style="line-height: 1.2; margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 26px;"><div data-hveid="CAYQAA" data-ved="2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0QFSgAMAN6BAgGEAA" style=""><div class="rc" style="position: relative;"><div class="r" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); display: inline; margin: 0px;"><a class="fl" href="http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:ya6M2rlQZCoJ:www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-mckibben-exxon-proxy-20170608-story.html+&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search%3Fq%3Dcache:ya6M2rlQZCoJ:www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-mckibben-exxon-proxy-20170608-story.html%2B%26cd%3D3%26hl%3Den%26ct%3Dclnk%26gl%3Dus&ved=2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0QIDACegQIBxAE" style="text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer; display: block; padding: 7px 18px; outline: 0px;" /><a href="http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/lying.html" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/lying.html&ved=2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0QFjADegQIBhAB" style="cursor: pointer; text-decoration-line: none;" /><h3 class="LC20lb" style="font-weight: normal; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; display: inline-block;"><a href="http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/lying.html" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/lying.html&ved=2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0QFjADegQIBhAB" style="cursor: pointer; text-decoration-line: none;"></a><a href="http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/lying.html" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/lying.html&ved=2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0QFjADegQIBhAB" style="cursor: pointer; text-decoration-line: none;" /><a href="http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/lying.html" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/lying.html&ved=2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0QFjADegQIBhAB" style="cursor: pointer; text-decoration-line: none;" /><a href="http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/lying.html" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/lying.html&ved=2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0QFjADegQIBhAB" style="cursor: pointer; text-decoration-line: none;" /><a href="http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/lying.html" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/lying.html&ved=2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0QFjADegQIBhAB" style="cursor: pointer; text-decoration-line: none;" /><a href="http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/lying.html" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/lying.html&ved=2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0QFjADegQIBhAB" style="cursor: pointer; text-decoration-line: none;" /><a href="http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/lying.html" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/lying.html&ved=2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0QFjADegQIBhAB" style="cursor: pointer; text-decoration-line: none;" /><a href="http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/lying.html" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/lying.html&ved=2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0QFjADegQIBhAB" style="cursor: pointer; text-decoration-line: none;" /><a href="http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/lying.html" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/lying.html&ved=2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0QFjADegQIBhAB" style="cursor: pointer; text-decoration-line: none;">Does the First Amendment Protect Lying?</a></h3>
<div class="TbwUpd" style="padding-bottom: 3px; padding-top: 2px; display: inline-block;"><cite class="iUh30" style="font-style: normal; padding-top: 1px;">law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/lying.html</cite></div><div class="action-menu ab_ctl" style="display: inline; position: relative; margin: 1px 3px 0px; user-select: none; vertical-align: middle;"><a class="GHDvEf ab_button" href="https://www.google.com/search?q=exxon+first+1st+amendment+lie&oq=exxon+first+1st+amendment+lie&aqs=chrome..69i57.10515j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#" id="am-b3" aria-label="Result Options" aria-expanded="false" aria-haspopup="true" role="button" jsaction="m.tdd;keydown:m.hbke;keypress:m.mskpe" data-ved="2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0Q7B0wA3oECAYQAg" style="border-radius: 0px; cursor: default; font-weight: bold; height: 12px; line-height: 27px; margin: 1px 0px 2px; min-width: 0px; padding: 0px; text-align: center; transition: none 0s ease 0s; user-select: none; background-image: none; border: 0px; box-shadow: 0px 0px 0px 0px; filter: none; width: 13px; text-decoration-line: none; display: inline-block;"><span class="mn-dwn-arw" style="text-align: left; border-color: rgb(0, 102, 33) transparent; border-style: solid; border-width: 5px 4px 0px; width: 0px; height: 0px; margin-left: 3px; top: 7.5px; margin-top: -4px; position: absolute; left: 0px;" /></a><div class="action-menu-panel ab_dropdown" role="menu" tabindex="-1" jsaction="keydown:m.hdke;mouseover:m.hdhne;mouseout:m.hdhue" data-ved="2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0QqR8wA3oECAYQAw" style="background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; border: 1px solid rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.2); padding: 0px; position: absolute; right: auto; top: 12px; white-space: nowrap; z-index: 3; transition: opacity 0.218s ease 0s; box-shadow: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.2) 0px 2px 4px; left: 0px; visibility: hidden;"><ol style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px;"><li class="action-menu-item ab_dropdownitem" role="menuitem" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; list-style: none; user-select: none; cursor: pointer;"><a class="fl" href="http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:0C2K7GxIO14J:law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/lying.html+&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search%3Fq%3Dcache:0C2K7GxIO14J:law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/lying.html%2B%26cd%3D4%26hl%3Den%26ct%3Dclnk%26gl%3Dus&ved=2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0QIDADegQIBhAE" style="text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer; display: block; padding: 7px 18px; outline: 0px;" /></li></ol></div></div></div><div class="s" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); max-width: 48em; line-height: 18px;"><a class="fl" href="http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:0C2K7GxIO14J:law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/lying.html+&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search%3Fq%3Dcache:0C2K7GxIO14J:law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/lying.html%2B%26cd%3D4%26hl%3Den%26ct%3Dclnk%26gl%3Dus&ved=2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0QIDADegQIBhAE" style="text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer; display: block; padding: 7px 18px; outline: 0px;"></a><a class="fl" href="http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:0C2K7GxIO14J:law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/lying.html+&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search%3Fq%3Dcache:0C2K7GxIO14J:law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/lying.html%2B%26cd%3D4%26hl%3Den%26ct%3Dclnk%26gl%3Dus&ved=2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0QIDADegQIBhAE" style="text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer; display: block; padding: 7px 18px; outline: 0px;"></a><a class="fl" href="http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:0C2K7GxIO14J:law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/lying.html+&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search%3Fq%3Dcache:0C2K7GxIO14J:law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/lying.html%2B%26cd%3D4%26hl%3Den%26ct%3Dclnk%26gl%3Dus&ved=2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0QIDADegQIBhAE" style="text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer; display: block; padding: 7px 18px; outline: 0px;"></a><a class="fl" href="http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:0C2K7GxIO14J:law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/lying.html+&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search%3Fq%3Dcache:0C2K7GxIO14J:law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/lying.html%2B%26cd%3D4%26hl%3Den%26ct%3Dclnk%26gl%3Dus&ved=2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0QIDADegQIBhAE" style="text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer; display: block; padding: 7px 18px; outline: 0px;"></a><a class="fl" href="http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:0C2K7GxIO14J:law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/lying.html+&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search%3Fq%3Dcache:0C2K7GxIO14J:law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/lying.html%2B%26cd%3D4%26hl%3Den%26ct%3Dclnk%26gl%3Dus&ved=2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0QIDADegQIBhAE" style="text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer; display: block; padding: 7px 18px; outline: 0px;"></a><a class="fl" href="http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:0C2K7GxIO14J:law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/lying.html+&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search%3Fq%3Dcache:0C2K7GxIO14J:law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/lying.html%2B%26cd%3D4%26hl%3Den%26ct%3Dclnk%26gl%3Dus&ved=2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0QIDADegQIBhAE" style="text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer; display: block; padding: 7px 18px; outline: 0px;"></a><a class="fl" href="http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:0C2K7GxIO14J:law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/lying.html+&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search%3Fq%3Dcache:0C2K7GxIO14J:law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/lying.html%2B%26cd%3D4%26hl%3Den%26ct%3Dclnk%26gl%3Dus&ved=2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0QIDADegQIBhAE" style="text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer; display: block; padding: 7px 18px; outline: 0px;">In New York Times v Sullivan (1964), the Court extended First Amendment protection to false statements of fact in a defamation suit. The Court held such ...</a><div class="TXwUJf" style=""><a class="fl" href="http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:0C2K7GxIO14J:law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/lying.html+&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search%3Fq%3Dcache:0C2K7GxIO14J:law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/lying.html%2B%26cd%3D4%26hl%3Den%26ct%3Dclnk%26gl%3Dus&ved=2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0QIDADegQIBhAE" style="text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer; display: block; padding: 7px 18px; outline: 0px;">Missing: <s>exxon</s> ?| ?Must include: ?</a><a class="fl" href="https://www.google.com/search?q=%22exxon%22+first+1st+amendment+lie&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0Q5t4CMAN6BAgGEAY" style="text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer;">exxon</a></div></div><div data-base-uri="/search?lei=0lTXW_WTOYWq_Qa_yK3oDg" jsl="$t t--ddbPTeIsNI;$x 0;" class="r-ic1F0GbYSBcM" data-ved="2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0Q2Z0BMAN6BAgGEAc" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><div class="g" style="line-height: 1.2; margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 26px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><div data-hveid="CAUQAA" data-ved="2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0QFSgAMAR6BAgFEAA"><div class="rc" style="position: relative;"><div class="r" style="display: inline; margin: 0px;"><a href="https://dailycaller.com/2016/06/13/dem-congressmen-first-amendment-doesnt-protect-global-warming-skeptics/" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://dailycaller.com/2016/06/13/dem-congressmen-first-amendment-doesnt-protect-global-warming-skeptics/&ved=2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0QFjAEegQIBRAB" style="cursor: pointer; text-decoration-line: none;" /><h3 class="LC20lb" style="font-weight: normal; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; display: inline-block;"><a href="https://dailycaller.com/2016/06/13/dem-congressmen-first-amendment-doesnt-protect-global-warming-skeptics/" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://dailycaller.com/2016/06/13/dem-congressmen-first-amendment-doesnt-protect-global-warming-skeptics/&ved=2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0QFjAEegQIBRAB" style="cursor: pointer; text-decoration-line: none;"></a><a href="https://dailycaller.com/2016/06/13/dem-congressmen-first-amendment-doesnt-protect-global-warming-skeptics/" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://dailycaller.com/2016/06/13/dem-congressmen-first-amendment-doesnt-protect-global-warming-skeptics/&ved=2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0QFjAEegQIBRAB" style="cursor: pointer; text-decoration-line: none;" /><a href="https://dailycaller.com/2016/06/13/dem-congressmen-first-amendment-doesnt-protect-global-warming-skeptics/" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://dailycaller.com/2016/06/13/dem-congressmen-first-amendment-doesnt-protect-global-warming-skeptics/&ved=2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0QFjAEegQIBRAB" style="cursor: pointer; text-decoration-line: none;" /><a href="https://dailycaller.com/2016/06/13/dem-congressmen-first-amendment-doesnt-protect-global-warming-skeptics/" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://dailycaller.com/2016/06/13/dem-congressmen-first-amendment-doesnt-protect-global-warming-skeptics/&ved=2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0QFjAEegQIBRAB" style="cursor: pointer; text-decoration-line: none;" /><a href="https://dailycaller.com/2016/06/13/dem-congressmen-first-amendment-doesnt-protect-global-warming-skeptics/" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://dailycaller.com/2016/06/13/dem-congressmen-first-amendment-doesnt-protect-global-warming-skeptics/&ved=2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0QFjAEegQIBRAB" style="cursor: pointer; text-decoration-line: none;" /><a href="https://dailycaller.com/2016/06/13/dem-congressmen-first-amendment-doesnt-protect-global-warming-skeptics/" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://dailycaller.com/2016/06/13/dem-congressmen-first-amendment-doesnt-protect-global-warming-skeptics/&ved=2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0QFjAEegQIBRAB" style="cursor: pointer; text-decoration-line: none;" /><a href="https://dailycaller.com/2016/06/13/dem-congressmen-first-amendment-doesnt-protect-global-warming-skeptics/" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://dailycaller.com/2016/06/13/dem-congressmen-first-amendment-doesnt-protect-global-warming-skeptics/&ved=2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0QFjAEegQIBRAB" style="cursor: pointer; text-decoration-line: none;" /><a href="https://dailycaller.com/2016/06/13/dem-congressmen-first-amendment-doesnt-protect-global-warming-skeptics/" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://dailycaller.com/2016/06/13/dem-congressmen-first-amendment-doesnt-protect-global-warming-skeptics/&ved=2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0QFjAEegQIBRAB" style="cursor: pointer; text-decoration-line: none;">Dem Congressmen: First Amendment Doesn't Protect Global Warming ...</a></h3>
<div class="TbwUpd" style="padding-bottom: 3px; padding-top: 2px; display: inline-block;"><cite class="iUh30" style="font-style: normal; padding-top: 1px;">https://dailycaller.com/.../dem-congressmen-first-amendment-doesnt-protect-global-w...</cite></div><div class="action-menu ab_ctl" style="display: inline; position: relative; margin: 1px 3px 0px; user-select: none; vertical-align: middle;"><a class="GHDvEf ab_button" href="https://www.google.com/search?q=exxon+first+1st+amendment+lie&oq=exxon+first+1st+amendment+lie&aqs=chrome..69i57.10515j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#" id="am-b4" aria-label="Result Options" aria-expanded="false" aria-haspopup="true" role="button" jsaction="m.tdd;keydown:m.hbke;keypress:m.mskpe" data-ved="2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0Q7B0wBHoECAUQAg" style="border-radius: 0px; cursor: default; font-weight: bold; height: 12px; line-height: 27px; margin: 1px 0px 2px; min-width: 0px; padding: 0px; text-align: center; transition: none 0s ease 0s; user-select: none; background-image: none; border: 0px; box-shadow: 0px 0px 0px 0px; filter: none; width: 13px; text-decoration-line: none; display: inline-block;"><span class="mn-dwn-arw" style="text-align: left; border-color: rgb(0, 102, 33) transparent; border-style: solid; border-width: 5px 4px 0px; width: 0px; height: 0px; margin-left: 3px; top: 7.5px; margin-top: -4px; position: absolute; left: 0px;" /></a><div class="action-menu-panel ab_dropdown" role="menu" tabindex="-1" jsaction="keydown:m.hdke;mouseover:m.hdhne;mouseout:m.hdhue" data-ved="2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0QqR8wBHoECAUQAw" style="background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; border: 1px solid rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.2); padding: 0px; position: absolute; right: auto; top: 12px; white-space: nowrap; z-index: 3; transition: opacity 0.218s ease 0s; box-shadow: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.2) 0px 2px 4px; left: 0px; visibility: hidden;"><ol style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px;"><li class="action-menu-item ab_dropdownitem" role="menuitem" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; list-style: none; user-select: none; cursor: pointer;"><a class="fl" href="https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:3TYbx3XjdAJ:https://dailycaller.com/2016/06/13/dem-congressmen-first-amendment-doesnt-protect-global-warming-skeptics/+&cd=5&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search%3Fq%3Dcache:3TYbx3XjdAJ:https://dailycaller.com/2016/06/13/dem-congressmen-first-amendment-doesnt-protect-global-warming-skeptics/%2B%26cd%3D5%26hl%3Den%26ct%3Dclnk%26gl%3Dus&ved=2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0QIDAEegQIBRAE" style="text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer; display: block; padding: 7px 18px; outline: 0px;" /></li></ol></div></div></div><div class="s" style="max-width: 48em; line-height: 18px;"><a class="fl" href="https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:3TYbx3XjdAJ:https://dailycaller.com/2016/06/13/dem-congressmen-first-amendment-doesnt-protect-global-warming-skeptics/+&cd=5&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search%3Fq%3Dcache:3TYbx3XjdAJ:https://dailycaller.com/2016/06/13/dem-congressmen-first-amendment-doesnt-protect-global-warming-skeptics/%2B%26cd%3D5%26hl%3Den%26ct%3Dclnk%26gl%3Dus&ved=2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0QIDAEegQIBRAE" style="text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer; display: block; padding: 7px 18px; outline: 0px;"></a><a class="fl" href="https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:3TYbx3XjdAJ:https://dailycaller.com/2016/06/13/dem-congressmen-first-amendment-doesnt-protect-global-warming-skeptics/+&cd=5&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search%3Fq%3Dcache:3TYbx3XjdAJ:https://dailycaller.com/2016/06/13/dem-congressmen-first-amendment-doesnt-protect-global-warming-skeptics/%2B%26cd%3D5%26hl%3Den%26ct%3Dclnk%26gl%3Dus&ved=2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0QIDAEegQIBRAE" style="text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer; display: block; padding: 7px 18px; outline: 0px;"></a><a class="fl" href="https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:3TYbx3XjdAJ:https://dailycaller.com/2016/06/13/dem-congressmen-first-amendment-doesnt-protect-global-warming-skeptics/+&cd=5&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search%3Fq%3Dcache:3TYbx3XjdAJ:https://dailycaller.com/2016/06/13/dem-congressmen-first-amendment-doesnt-protect-global-warming-skeptics/%2B%26cd%3D5%26hl%3Den%26ct%3Dclnk%26gl%3Dus&ved=2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0QIDAEegQIBRAE" style="text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer; display: block; padding: 7px 18px; outline: 0px;"></a><a class="fl" href="https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:3TYbx3XjdAJ:https://dailycaller.com/2016/06/13/dem-congressmen-first-amendment-doesnt-protect-global-warming-skeptics/+&cd=5&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search%3Fq%3Dcache:3TYbx3XjdAJ:https://dailycaller.com/2016/06/13/dem-congressmen-first-amendment-doesnt-protect-global-warming-skeptics/%2B%26cd%3D5%26hl%3Den%26ct%3Dclnk%26gl%3Dus&ved=2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0QIDAEegQIBRAE" style="text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer; display: block; padding: 7px 18px; outline: 0px;"></a><a class="fl" href="https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:3TYbx3XjdAJ:https://dailycaller.com/2016/06/13/dem-congressmen-first-amendment-doesnt-protect-global-warming-skeptics/+&cd=5&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search%3Fq%3Dcache:3TYbx3XjdAJ:https://dailycaller.com/2016/06/13/dem-congressmen-first-amendment-doesnt-protect-global-warming-skeptics/%2B%26cd%3D5%26hl%3Den%26ct%3Dclnk%26gl%3Dus&ved=2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0QIDAEegQIBRAE" style="text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer; display: block; padding: 7px 18px; outline: 0px;"></a><a class="fl" href="https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:3TYbx3XjdAJ:https://dailycaller.com/2016/06/13/dem-congressmen-first-amendment-doesnt-protect-global-warming-skeptics/+&cd=5&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search%3Fq%3Dcache:3TYbx3XjdAJ:https://dailycaller.com/2016/06/13/dem-congressmen-first-amendment-doesnt-protect-global-warming-skeptics/%2B%26cd%3D5%26hl%3Den%26ct%3Dclnk%26gl%3Dus&ved=2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0QIDAEegQIBRAE" style="text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer; display: block; padding: 7px 18px; outline: 0px;"></a><a class="fl" href="https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:3TYbx3XjdAJ:https://dailycaller.com/2016/06/13/dem-congressmen-first-amendment-doesnt-protect-global-warming-skeptics/+&cd=5&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search%3Fq%3Dcache:3TYbx3XjdAJ:https://dailycaller.com/2016/06/13/dem-congressmen-first-amendment-doesnt-protect-global-warming-skeptics/%2B%26cd%3D5%26hl%3Den%26ct%3Dclnk%26gl%3Dus&ved=2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0QIDAEegQIBRAE" style="text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer; display: block; padding: 7px 18px; outline: 0px;">Jun 13, 2016 - Nineteen Democratic lawmakers told Harris her “investigation as to whether ExxonMobil lied about the truth of climate change and misled ...</a></div></div></div></div><div class="g" style="line-height: 1.2; margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 26px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><div data-hveid="CAQQAA" data-ved="2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0QFSgAMAV6BAgEEAA"><div class="rc" style="position: relative;"><div class="r" style="display: inline; margin: 0px;"><a class="fl" href="https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:3TYbx3XjdAJ:https://dailycaller.com/2016/06/13/dem-congressmen-first-amendment-doesnt-protect-global-warming-skeptics/+&cd=5&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search%3Fq%3Dcache:3TYbx3XjdAJ:https://dailycaller.com/2016/06/13/dem-congressmen-first-amendment-doesnt-protect-global-warming-skeptics/%2B%26cd%3D5%26hl%3Den%26ct%3Dclnk%26gl%3Dus&ved=2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0QIDAEegQIBRAE" style="text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer; display: block; padding: 7px 18px; outline: 0px;" /><a href="https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/exxon-first-amendment_us_571662c6e4b0060ccda46d63" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/exxon-first-amendment_us_571662c6e4b0060ccda46d63&ved=2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0QFjAFegQIBBAB" style="cursor: pointer; text-decoration-line: none;" /><h3 class="LC20lb" style="font-weight: normal; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; display: inline-block;"><a href="https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/exxon-first-amendment_us_571662c6e4b0060ccda46d63" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/exxon-first-amendment_us_571662c6e4b0060ccda46d63&ved=2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0QFjAFegQIBBAB" style="cursor: pointer; text-decoration-line: none;"></a><a href="https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/exxon-first-amendment_us_571662c6e4b0060ccda46d63" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/exxon-first-amendment_us_571662c6e4b0060ccda46d63&ved=2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0QFjAFegQIBBAB" style="cursor: pointer; text-decoration-line: none;" /><a href="https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/exxon-first-amendment_us_571662c6e4b0060ccda46d63" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/exxon-first-amendment_us_571662c6e4b0060ccda46d63&ved=2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0QFjAFegQIBBAB" style="cursor: pointer; text-decoration-line: none;" /><a href="https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/exxon-first-amendment_us_571662c6e4b0060ccda46d63" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/exxon-first-amendment_us_571662c6e4b0060ccda46d63&ved=2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0QFjAFegQIBBAB" style="cursor: pointer; text-decoration-line: none;" /><a href="https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/exxon-first-amendment_us_571662c6e4b0060ccda46d63" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/exxon-first-amendment_us_571662c6e4b0060ccda46d63&ved=2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0QFjAFegQIBBAB" style="cursor: pointer; text-decoration-line: none;" /><a href="https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/exxon-first-amendment_us_571662c6e4b0060ccda46d63" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/exxon-first-amendment_us_571662c6e4b0060ccda46d63&ved=2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0QFjAFegQIBBAB" style="cursor: pointer; text-decoration-line: none;" /><a href="https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/exxon-first-amendment_us_571662c6e4b0060ccda46d63" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/exxon-first-amendment_us_571662c6e4b0060ccda46d63&ved=2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0QFjAFegQIBBAB" style="cursor: pointer; text-decoration-line: none;" /><a href="https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/exxon-first-amendment_us_571662c6e4b0060ccda46d63" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/exxon-first-amendment_us_571662c6e4b0060ccda46d63&ved=2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0QFjAFegQIBBAB" style="cursor: pointer; text-decoration-line: none;" /><a href="https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/exxon-first-amendment_us_571662c6e4b0060ccda46d63" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/exxon-first-amendment_us_571662c6e4b0060ccda46d63&ved=2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0QFjAFegQIBBAB" style="cursor: pointer; text-decoration-line: none;">Exxon Tries To Bury Climate Documents By Claiming First ...</a></h3>
<div class="TbwUpd" style="padding-bottom: 3px; padding-top: 2px; display: inline-block;"><cite class="iUh30" style="font-style: normal; padding-top: 1px;">https://www.huffingtonpost.com/.../exxon-first-amendment_us_571662c6e4b0060ccd...</cite></div><div class="action-menu ab_ctl" style="display: inline; position: relative; margin: 1px 3px 0px; user-select: none; vertical-align: middle;"><a class="GHDvEf ab_button" href="https://www.google.com/search?q=exxon+first+1st+amendment+lie&oq=exxon+first+1st+amendment+lie&aqs=chrome..69i57.10515j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#" id="am-b5" aria-label="Result Options" aria-expanded="false" aria-haspopup="true" role="button" jsaction="m.tdd;keydown:m.hbke;keypress:m.mskpe" data-ved="2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0Q7B0wBXoECAQQAg" style="border-radius: 0px; cursor: default; font-weight: bold; height: 12px; line-height: 27px; margin: 1px 0px 2px; min-width: 0px; padding: 0px; text-align: center; transition: none 0s ease 0s; user-select: none; background-image: none; border: 0px; box-shadow: 0px 0px 0px 0px; filter: none; width: 13px; text-decoration-line: none; display: inline-block;"><span class="mn-dwn-arw" style="text-align: left; border-color: rgb(0, 102, 33) transparent; border-style: solid; border-width: 5px 4px 0px; width: 0px; height: 0px; margin-left: 3px; top: 7.5px; margin-top: -4px; position: absolute; left: 0px;" /></a><div class="action-menu-panel ab_dropdown" role="menu" tabindex="-1" jsaction="keydown:m.hdke;mouseover:m.hdhne;mouseout:m.hdhue" data-ved="2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0QqR8wBXoECAQQAw" style="background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; border: 1px solid rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.2); padding: 0px; position: absolute; right: auto; top: 12px; white-space: nowrap; z-index: 3; transition: opacity 0.218s ease 0s; box-shadow: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.2) 0px 2px 4px; left: 0px; visibility: hidden;"><ol style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px;"><li class="action-menu-item ab_dropdownitem" role="menuitem" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; list-style: none; user-select: none; cursor: pointer;"><a class="fl" href="https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:sq_ezpzc4y8J:https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/exxon-first-amendment_us_571662c6e4b0060ccda46d63+&cd=6&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search%3Fq%3Dcache:sq_ezpzc4y8J:https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/exxon-first-amendment_us_571662c6e4b0060ccda46d63%2B%26cd%3D6%26hl%3Den%26ct%3Dclnk%26gl%3Dus&ved=2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0QIDAFegQIBBAE" style="text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer; display: block; padding: 7px 18px; outline: 0px;" /></li></ol></div></div></div><div class="s" style="max-width: 48em; line-height: 18px;"><a class="fl" href="https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:sq_ezpzc4y8J:https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/exxon-first-amendment_us_571662c6e4b0060ccda46d63+&cd=6&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search%3Fq%3Dcache:sq_ezpzc4y8J:https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/exxon-first-amendment_us_571662c6e4b0060ccda46d63%2B%26cd%3D6%26hl%3Den%26ct%3Dclnk%26gl%3Dus&ved=2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0QIDAFegQIBBAE" style="text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer; display: block; padding: 7px 18px; outline: 0px;"></a><a class="fl" href="https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:sq_ezpzc4y8J:https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/exxon-first-amendment_us_571662c6e4b0060ccda46d63+&cd=6&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search%3Fq%3Dcache:sq_ezpzc4y8J:https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/exxon-first-amendment_us_571662c6e4b0060ccda46d63%2B%26cd%3D6%26hl%3Den%26ct%3Dclnk%26gl%3Dus&ved=2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0QIDAFegQIBBAE" style="text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer; display: block; padding: 7px 18px; outline: 0px;"></a><a class="fl" href="https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:sq_ezpzc4y8J:https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/exxon-first-amendment_us_571662c6e4b0060ccda46d63+&cd=6&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search%3Fq%3Dcache:sq_ezpzc4y8J:https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/exxon-first-amendment_us_571662c6e4b0060ccda46d63%2B%26cd%3D6%26hl%3Den%26ct%3Dclnk%26gl%3Dus&ved=2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0QIDAFegQIBBAE" style="text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer; display: block; padding: 7px 18px; outline: 0px;"></a><a class="fl" href="https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:sq_ezpzc4y8J:https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/exxon-first-amendment_us_571662c6e4b0060ccda46d63+&cd=6&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search%3Fq%3Dcache:sq_ezpzc4y8J:https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/exxon-first-amendment_us_571662c6e4b0060ccda46d63%2B%26cd%3D6%26hl%3Den%26ct%3Dclnk%26gl%3Dus&ved=2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0QIDAFegQIBBAE" style="text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer; display: block; padding: 7px 18px; outline: 0px;"></a><a class="fl" href="https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:sq_ezpzc4y8J:https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/exxon-first-amendment_us_571662c6e4b0060ccda46d63+&cd=6&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search%3Fq%3Dcache:sq_ezpzc4y8J:https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/exxon-first-amendment_us_571662c6e4b0060ccda46d63%2B%26cd%3D6%26hl%3Den%26ct%3Dclnk%26gl%3Dus&ved=2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0QIDAFegQIBBAE" style="text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer; display: block; padding: 7px 18px; outline: 0px;"></a><a class="fl" href="https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:sq_ezpzc4y8J:https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/exxon-first-amendment_us_571662c6e4b0060ccda46d63+&cd=6&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search%3Fq%3Dcache:sq_ezpzc4y8J:https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/exxon-first-amendment_us_571662c6e4b0060ccda46d63%2B%26cd%3D6%26hl%3Den%26ct%3Dclnk%26gl%3Dus&ved=2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0QIDAFegQIBBAE" style="text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer; display: block; padding: 7px 18px; outline: 0px;"></a><a class="fl" href="https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:sq_ezpzc4y8J:https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/exxon-first-amendment_us_571662c6e4b0060ccda46d63+&cd=6&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search%3Fq%3Dcache:sq_ezpzc4y8J:https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/exxon-first-amendment_us_571662c6e4b0060ccda46d63%2B%26cd%3D6%26hl%3Den%26ct%3Dclnk%26gl%3Dus&ved=2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0QIDAFegQIBBAE" style="text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer; display: block; padding: 7px 18px; outline: 0px;">Apr 19, 2016 - ExxonMobil is fighting a subpoena seeking its internal documents on climate ... Exxon'sinvocation of the First Amendment is fairly unusual for a ...</a><div class="TXwUJf" style=""><a class="fl" href="https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:sq_ezpzc4y8J:https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/exxon-first-amendment_us_571662c6e4b0060ccda46d63+&cd=6&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search%3Fq%3Dcache:sq_ezpzc4y8J:https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/exxon-first-amendment_us_571662c6e4b0060ccda46d63%2B%26cd%3D6%26hl%3Den%26ct%3Dclnk%26gl%3Dus&ved=2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0QIDAFegQIBBAE" style="text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer; display: block; padding: 7px 18px; outline: 0px;">Missing: <s>1st</s> ?<s>lie</s></a></div></div></div></div></div><a class="fl" href="https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:sq_ezpzc4y8J:https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/exxon-first-amendment_us_571662c6e4b0060ccda46d63+&cd=6&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search%3Fq%3Dcache:sq_ezpzc4y8J:https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/exxon-first-amendment_us_571662c6e4b0060ccda46d63%2B%26cd%3D6%26hl%3Den%26ct%3Dclnk%26gl%3Dus&ved=2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0QIDAFegQIBBAE" style="text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer; display: block; padding: 7px 18px; outline: 0px;"></a><div class="g" style="line-height: 1.2; margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 26px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><a class="fl" href="https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:sq_ezpzc4y8J:https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/exxon-first-amendment_us_571662c6e4b0060ccda46d63+&cd=6&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search%3Fq%3Dcache:sq_ezpzc4y8J:https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/exxon-first-amendment_us_571662c6e4b0060ccda46d63%2B%26cd%3D6%26hl%3Den%26ct%3Dclnk%26gl%3Dus&ved=2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0QIDAFegQIBBAE" style="text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer; display: block; padding: 7px 18px; outline: 0px;" /><div data-hveid="CAEQAA" data-ved="2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0QFSgAMAZ6BAgBEAA"><a class="fl" href="https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:sq_ezpzc4y8J:https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/exxon-first-amendment_us_571662c6e4b0060ccda46d63+&cd=6&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search%3Fq%3Dcache:sq_ezpzc4y8J:https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/exxon-first-amendment_us_571662c6e4b0060ccda46d63%2B%26cd%3D6%26hl%3Den%26ct%3Dclnk%26gl%3Dus&ved=2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0QIDAFegQIBBAE" style="text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer; display: block; padding: 7px 18px; outline: 0px;"></a><a class="fl" href="https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:sq_ezpzc4y8J:https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/exxon-first-amendment_us_571662c6e4b0060ccda46d63+&cd=6&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search%3Fq%3Dcache:sq_ezpzc4y8J:https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/exxon-first-amendment_us_571662c6e4b0060ccda46d63%2B%26cd%3D6%26hl%3Den%26ct%3Dclnk%26gl%3Dus&ved=2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0QIDAFegQIBBAE" style="text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer; display: block; padding: 7px 18px; outline: 0px;"></a><a class="fl" href="https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:sq_ezpzc4y8J:https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/exxon-first-amendment_us_571662c6e4b0060ccda46d63+&cd=6&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search%3Fq%3Dcache:sq_ezpzc4y8J:https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/exxon-first-amendment_us_571662c6e4b0060ccda46d63%2B%26cd%3D6%26hl%3Den%26ct%3Dclnk%26gl%3Dus&ved=2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0QIDAFegQIBBAE" style="text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer; display: block; padding: 7px 18px; outline: 0px;" /><a class="fl" href="https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:sq_ezpzc4y8J:https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/exxon-first-amendment_us_571662c6e4b0060ccda46d63+&cd=6&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search%3Fq%3Dcache:sq_ezpzc4y8J:https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/exxon-first-amendment_us_571662c6e4b0060ccda46d63%2B%26cd%3D6%26hl%3Den%26ct%3Dclnk%26gl%3Dus&ved=2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0QIDAFegQIBBAE" style="text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer; display: block; padding: 7px 18px; outline: 0px;" /><a class="fl" href="https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:sq_ezpzc4y8J:https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/exxon-first-amendment_us_571662c6e4b0060ccda46d63+&cd=6&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search%3Fq%3Dcache:sq_ezpzc4y8J:https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/exxon-first-amendment_us_571662c6e4b0060ccda46d63%2B%26cd%3D6%26hl%3Den%26ct%3Dclnk%26gl%3Dus&ved=2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0QIDAFegQIBBAE" style="text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer; display: block; padding: 7px 18px; outline: 0px;" /><a class="fl" href="https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:sq_ezpzc4y8J:https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/exxon-first-amendment_us_571662c6e4b0060ccda46d63+&cd=6&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search%3Fq%3Dcache:sq_ezpzc4y8J:https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/exxon-first-amendment_us_571662c6e4b0060ccda46d63%2B%26cd%3D6%26hl%3Den%26ct%3Dclnk%26gl%3Dus&ved=2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0QIDAFegQIBBAE" style="text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer; display: block; padding: 7px 18px; outline: 0px;" /><a class="fl" href="https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:sq_ezpzc4y8J:https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/exxon-first-amendment_us_571662c6e4b0060ccda46d63+&cd=6&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search%3Fq%3Dcache:sq_ezpzc4y8J:https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/exxon-first-amendment_us_571662c6e4b0060ccda46d63%2B%26cd%3D6%26hl%3Den%26ct%3Dclnk%26gl%3Dus&ved=2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0QIDAFegQIBBAE" style="text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer; display: block; padding: 7px 18px; outline: 0px;" /><a class="fl" href="https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:sq_ezpzc4y8J:https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/exxon-first-amendment_us_571662c6e4b0060ccda46d63+&cd=6&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search%3Fq%3Dcache:sq_ezpzc4y8J:https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/exxon-first-amendment_us_571662c6e4b0060ccda46d63%2B%26cd%3D6%26hl%3Den%26ct%3Dclnk%26gl%3Dus&ved=2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0QIDAFegQIBBAE" style="text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer; display: block; padding: 7px 18px; outline: 0px;" /><a class="fl" href="https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:sq_ezpzc4y8J:https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/exxon-first-amendment_us_571662c6e4b0060ccda46d63+&cd=6&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search%3Fq%3Dcache:sq_ezpzc4y8J:https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/exxon-first-amendment_us_571662c6e4b0060ccda46d63%2B%26cd%3D6%26hl%3Den%26ct%3Dclnk%26gl%3Dus&ved=2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0QIDAFegQIBBAE" style="text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer; display: block; padding: 7px 18px; outline: 0px;" /><div class="rc" style="position: relative;"><a class="fl" href="https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:sq_ezpzc4y8J:https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/exxon-first-amendment_us_571662c6e4b0060ccda46d63+&cd=6&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search%3Fq%3Dcache:sq_ezpzc4y8J:https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/exxon-first-amendment_us_571662c6e4b0060ccda46d63%2B%26cd%3D6%26hl%3Den%26ct%3Dclnk%26gl%3Dus&ved=2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0QIDAFegQIBBAE" style="text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer; display: block; padding: 7px 18px; outline: 0px;"></a><a class="fl" href="https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:sq_ezpzc4y8J:https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/exxon-first-amendment_us_571662c6e4b0060ccda46d63+&cd=6&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search%3Fq%3Dcache:sq_ezpzc4y8J:https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/exxon-first-amendment_us_571662c6e4b0060ccda46d63%2B%26cd%3D6%26hl%3Den%26ct%3Dclnk%26gl%3Dus&ved=2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0QIDAFegQIBBAE" style="text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer; display: block; padding: 7px 18px; outline: 0px;"></a><a class="fl" href="https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:sq_ezpzc4y8J:https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/exxon-first-amendment_us_571662c6e4b0060ccda46d63+&cd=6&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search%3Fq%3Dcache:sq_ezpzc4y8J:https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/exxon-first-amendment_us_571662c6e4b0060ccda46d63%2B%26cd%3D6%26hl%3Den%26ct%3Dclnk%26gl%3Dus&ved=2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0QIDAFegQIBBAE" style="text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer; display: block; padding: 7px 18px; outline: 0px;"></a><a class="fl" href="https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:sq_ezpzc4y8J:https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/exxon-first-amendment_us_571662c6e4b0060ccda46d63+&cd=6&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search%3Fq%3Dcache:sq_ezpzc4y8J:https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/exxon-first-amendment_us_571662c6e4b0060ccda46d63%2B%26cd%3D6%26hl%3Den%26ct%3Dclnk%26gl%3Dus&ved=2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0QIDAFegQIBBAE" style="text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer; display: block; padding: 7px 18px; outline: 0px;"></a><a class="fl" href="https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:sq_ezpzc4y8J:https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/exxon-first-amendment_us_571662c6e4b0060ccda46d63+&cd=6&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search%3Fq%3Dcache:sq_ezpzc4y8J:https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/exxon-first-amendment_us_571662c6e4b0060ccda46d63%2B%26cd%3D6%26hl%3Den%26ct%3Dclnk%26gl%3Dus&ved=2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0QIDAFegQIBBAE" style="text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer; display: block; padding: 7px 18px; outline: 0px;"></a><a class="fl" href="https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:sq_ezpzc4y8J:https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/exxon-first-amendment_us_571662c6e4b0060ccda46d63+&cd=6&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search%3Fq%3Dcache:sq_ezpzc4y8J:https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/exxon-first-amendment_us_571662c6e4b0060ccda46d63%2B%26cd%3D6%26hl%3Den%26ct%3Dclnk%26gl%3Dus&ved=2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0QIDAFegQIBBAE" style="text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer; display: block; padding: 7px 18px; outline: 0px;" /><a class="fl" href="https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:sq_ezpzc4y8J:https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/exxon-first-amendment_us_571662c6e4b0060ccda46d63+&cd=6&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search%3Fq%3Dcache:sq_ezpzc4y8J:https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/exxon-first-amendment_us_571662c6e4b0060ccda46d63%2B%26cd%3D6%26hl%3Den%26ct%3Dclnk%26gl%3Dus&ved=2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0QIDAFegQIBBAE" style="text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer; display: block; padding: 7px 18px; outline: 0px;" /><a class="fl" href="https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:sq_ezpzc4y8J:https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/exxon-first-amendment_us_571662c6e4b0060ccda46d63+&cd=6&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search%3Fq%3Dcache:sq_ezpzc4y8J:https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/exxon-first-amendment_us_571662c6e4b0060ccda46d63%2B%26cd%3D6%26hl%3Den%26ct%3Dclnk%26gl%3Dus&ved=2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0QIDAFegQIBBAE" style="text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer; display: block; padding: 7px 18px; outline: 0px;" /><a class="fl" href="https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:sq_ezpzc4y8J:https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/exxon-first-amendment_us_571662c6e4b0060ccda46d63+&cd=6&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search%3Fq%3Dcache:sq_ezpzc4y8J:https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/exxon-first-amendment_us_571662c6e4b0060ccda46d63%2B%26cd%3D6%26hl%3Den%26ct%3Dclnk%26gl%3Dus&ved=2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0QIDAFegQIBBAE" style="text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer; display: block; padding: 7px 18px; outline: 0px;" /><a class="fl" href="https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:sq_ezpzc4y8J:https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/exxon-first-amendment_us_571662c6e4b0060ccda46d63+&cd=6&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search%3Fq%3Dcache:sq_ezpzc4y8J:https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/exxon-first-amendment_us_571662c6e4b0060ccda46d63%2B%26cd%3D6%26hl%3Den%26ct%3Dclnk%26gl%3Dus&ved=2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0QIDAFegQIBBAE" style="text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer; display: block; padding: 7px 18px; outline: 0px;" /><a class="fl" href="https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:sq_ezpzc4y8J:https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/exxon-first-amendment_us_571662c6e4b0060ccda46d63+&cd=6&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search%3Fq%3Dcache:sq_ezpzc4y8J:https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/exxon-first-amendment_us_571662c6e4b0060ccda46d63%2B%26cd%3D6%26hl%3Den%26ct%3Dclnk%26gl%3Dus&ved=2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0QIDAFegQIBBAE" style="text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer; display: block; padding: 7px 18px; outline: 0px;" /><a class="fl" href="https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:sq_ezpzc4y8J:https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/exxon-first-amendment_us_571662c6e4b0060ccda46d63+&cd=6&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search%3Fq%3Dcache:sq_ezpzc4y8J:https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/exxon-first-amendment_us_571662c6e4b0060ccda46d63%2B%26cd%3D6%26hl%3Den%26ct%3Dclnk%26gl%3Dus&ved=2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0QIDAFegQIBBAE" style="text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer; display: block; padding: 7px 18px; outline: 0px;" /><div class="r" style="display: inline; margin: 0px;"><a class="fl" href="https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:sq_ezpzc4y8J:https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/exxon-first-amendment_us_571662c6e4b0060ccda46d63+&cd=6&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search%3Fq%3Dcache:sq_ezpzc4y8J:https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/exxon-first-amendment_us_571662c6e4b0060ccda46d63%2B%26cd%3D6%26hl%3Den%26ct%3Dclnk%26gl%3Dus&ved=2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0QIDAFegQIBBAE" style="text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer; display: block; padding: 7px 18px; outline: 0px;"></a><a class="fl" href="https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:sq_ezpzc4y8J:https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/exxon-first-amendment_us_571662c6e4b0060ccda46d63+&cd=6&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search%3Fq%3Dcache:sq_ezpzc4y8J:https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/exxon-first-amendment_us_571662c6e4b0060ccda46d63%2B%26cd%3D6%26hl%3Den%26ct%3Dclnk%26gl%3Dus&ved=2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0QIDAFegQIBBAE" style="text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer; display: block; padding: 7px 18px; outline: 0px;"></a><a class="fl" href="https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:sq_ezpzc4y8J:https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/exxon-first-amendment_us_571662c6e4b0060ccda46d63+&cd=6&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search%3Fq%3Dcache:sq_ezpzc4y8J:https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/exxon-first-amendment_us_571662c6e4b0060ccda46d63%2B%26cd%3D6%26hl%3Den%26ct%3Dclnk%26gl%3Dus&ved=2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0QIDAFegQIBBAE" style="text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer; display: block; padding: 7px 18px; outline: 0px;"></a><a class="fl" href="https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:sq_ezpzc4y8J:https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/exxon-first-amendment_us_571662c6e4b0060ccda46d63+&cd=6&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search%3Fq%3Dcache:sq_ezpzc4y8J:https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/exxon-first-amendment_us_571662c6e4b0060ccda46d63%2B%26cd%3D6%26hl%3Den%26ct%3Dclnk%26gl%3Dus&ved=2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0QIDAFegQIBBAE" style="text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer; display: block; padding: 7px 18px; outline: 0px;"></a><a class="fl" href="https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:sq_ezpzc4y8J:https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/exxon-first-amendment_us_571662c6e4b0060ccda46d63+&cd=6&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search%3Fq%3Dcache:sq_ezpzc4y8J:https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/exxon-first-amendment_us_571662c6e4b0060ccda46d63%2B%26cd%3D6%26hl%3Den%26ct%3Dclnk%26gl%3Dus&ved=2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0QIDAFegQIBBAE" style="text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer; display: block; padding: 7px 18px; outline: 0px;"></a><a class="fl" href="https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:sq_ezpzc4y8J:https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/exxon-first-amendment_us_571662c6e4b0060ccda46d63+&cd=6&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search%3Fq%3Dcache:sq_ezpzc4y8J:https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/exxon-first-amendment_us_571662c6e4b0060ccda46d63%2B%26cd%3D6%26hl%3Den%26ct%3Dclnk%26gl%3Dus&ved=2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0QIDAFegQIBBAE" style="text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer; display: block; padding: 7px 18px; outline: 0px;"></a><a class="fl" href="https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:sq_ezpzc4y8J:https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/exxon-first-amendment_us_571662c6e4b0060ccda46d63+&cd=6&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search%3Fq%3Dcache:sq_ezpzc4y8J:https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/exxon-first-amendment_us_571662c6e4b0060ccda46d63%2B%26cd%3D6%26hl%3Den%26ct%3Dclnk%26gl%3Dus&ved=2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0QIDAFegQIBBAE" style="text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer; display: block; padding: 7px 18px; outline: 0px;"></a><a class="fl" href="https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:sq_ezpzc4y8J:https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/exxon-first-amendment_us_571662c6e4b0060ccda46d63+&cd=6&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search%3Fq%3Dcache:sq_ezpzc4y8J:https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/exxon-first-amendment_us_571662c6e4b0060ccda46d63%2B%26cd%3D6%26hl%3Den%26ct%3Dclnk%26gl%3Dus&ved=2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0QIDAFegQIBBAE" style="text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer; display: block; padding: 7px 18px; outline: 0px;"></a><a class="fl" href="https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:sq_ezpzc4y8J:https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/exxon-first-amendment_us_571662c6e4b0060ccda46d63+&cd=6&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search%3Fq%3Dcache:sq_ezpzc4y8J:https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/exxon-first-amendment_us_571662c6e4b0060ccda46d63%2B%26cd%3D6%26hl%3Den%26ct%3Dclnk%26gl%3Dus&ved=2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0QIDAFegQIBBAE" style="text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer; display: block; padding: 7px 18px; outline: 0px;"></a><a class="fl" href="https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:sq_ezpzc4y8J:https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/exxon-first-amendment_us_571662c6e4b0060ccda46d63+&cd=6&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search%3Fq%3Dcache:sq_ezpzc4y8J:https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/exxon-first-amendment_us_571662c6e4b0060ccda46d63%2B%26cd%3D6%26hl%3Den%26ct%3Dclnk%26gl%3Dus&ved=2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0QIDAFegQIBBAE" style="text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer; display: block; padding: 7px 18px; outline: 0px;"></a><a class="fl" href="https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:sq_ezpzc4y8J:https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/exxon-first-amendment_us_571662c6e4b0060ccda46d63+&cd=6&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search%3Fq%3Dcache:sq_ezpzc4y8J:https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/exxon-first-amendment_us_571662c6e4b0060ccda46d63%2B%26cd%3D6%26hl%3Den%26ct%3Dclnk%26gl%3Dus&ved=2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0QIDAFegQIBBAE" style="text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer; display: block; padding: 7px 18px; outline: 0px;"></a><a class="fl" href="https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:sq_ezpzc4y8J:https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/exxon-first-amendment_us_571662c6e4b0060ccda46d63+&cd=6&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search%3Fq%3Dcache:sq_ezpzc4y8J:https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/exxon-first-amendment_us_571662c6e4b0060ccda46d63%2B%26cd%3D6%26hl%3Den%26ct%3Dclnk%26gl%3Dus&ved=2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0QIDAFegQIBBAE" style="text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer; display: block; padding: 7px 18px; outline: 0px;"></a><a class="fl" href="https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:sq_ezpzc4y8J:https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/exxon-first-amendment_us_571662c6e4b0060ccda46d63+&cd=6&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search%3Fq%3Dcache:sq_ezpzc4y8J:https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/exxon-first-amendment_us_571662c6e4b0060ccda46d63%2B%26cd%3D6%26hl%3Den%26ct%3Dclnk%26gl%3Dus&ved=2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0QIDAFegQIBBAE" style="text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer; display: block; padding: 7px 18px; outline: 0px;"></a><a class="fl" href="https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:sq_ezpzc4y8J:https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/exxon-first-amendment_us_571662c6e4b0060ccda46d63+&cd=6&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search%3Fq%3Dcache:sq_ezpzc4y8J:https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/exxon-first-amendment_us_571662c6e4b0060ccda46d63%2B%26cd%3D6%26hl%3Den%26ct%3Dclnk%26gl%3Dus&ved=2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0QIDAFegQIBBAE" style="text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer; display: block; padding: 7px 18px; outline: 0px;"></a><a class="fl" href="https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:sq_ezpzc4y8J:https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/exxon-first-amendment_us_571662c6e4b0060ccda46d63+&cd=6&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search%3Fq%3Dcache:sq_ezpzc4y8J:https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/exxon-first-amendment_us_571662c6e4b0060ccda46d63%2B%26cd%3D6%26hl%3Den%26ct%3Dclnk%26gl%3Dus&ved=2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0QIDAFegQIBBAE" style="text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer; display: block; padding: 7px 18px; outline: 0px;"></a><a class="fl" href="https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:sq_ezpzc4y8J:https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/exxon-first-amendment_us_571662c6e4b0060ccda46d63+&cd=6&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search%3Fq%3Dcache:sq_ezpzc4y8J:https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/exxon-first-amendment_us_571662c6e4b0060ccda46d63%2B%26cd%3D6%26hl%3Den%26ct%3Dclnk%26gl%3Dus&ved=2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0QIDAFegQIBBAE" style="text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer; display: block; padding: 7px 18px; outline: 0px;"></a><a class="fl" href="https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:sq_ezpzc4y8J:https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/exxon-first-amendment_us_571662c6e4b0060ccda46d63+&cd=6&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search%3Fq%3Dcache:sq_ezpzc4y8J:https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/exxon-first-amendment_us_571662c6e4b0060ccda46d63%2B%26cd%3D6%26hl%3Den%26ct%3Dclnk%26gl%3Dus&ved=2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0QIDAFegQIBBAE" style="text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer; display: block; padding: 7px 18px; outline: 0px;"></a><a class="fl" href="https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:sq_ezpzc4y8J:https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/exxon-first-amendment_us_571662c6e4b0060ccda46d63+&cd=6&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search%3Fq%3Dcache:sq_ezpzc4y8J:https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/exxon-first-amendment_us_571662c6e4b0060ccda46d63%2B%26cd%3D6%26hl%3Den%26ct%3Dclnk%26gl%3Dus&ved=2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0QIDAFegQIBBAE" style="text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer; display: block; padding: 7px 18px; outline: 0px;"></a><a class="fl" href="https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:sq_ezpzc4y8J:https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/exxon-first-amendment_us_571662c6e4b0060ccda46d63+&cd=6&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search%3Fq%3Dcache:sq_ezpzc4y8J:https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/exxon-first-amendment_us_571662c6e4b0060ccda46d63%2B%26cd%3D6%26hl%3Den%26ct%3Dclnk%26gl%3Dus&ved=2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0QIDAFegQIBBAE" style="text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer; display: block; padding: 7px 18px; outline: 0px;"></a><a class="fl" href="https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:sq_ezpzc4y8J:https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/exxon-first-amendment_us_571662c6e4b0060ccda46d63+&cd=6&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search%3Fq%3Dcache:sq_ezpzc4y8J:https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/exxon-first-amendment_us_571662c6e4b0060ccda46d63%2B%26cd%3D6%26hl%3Den%26ct%3Dclnk%26gl%3Dus&ved=2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0QIDAFegQIBBAE" style="text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer; display: block; padding: 7px 18px; outline: 0px;"></a><a class="fl" href="https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:sq_ezpzc4y8J:https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/exxon-first-amendment_us_571662c6e4b0060ccda46d63+&cd=6&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search%3Fq%3Dcache:sq_ezpzc4y8J:https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/exxon-first-amendment_us_571662c6e4b0060ccda46d63%2B%26cd%3D6%26hl%3Den%26ct%3Dclnk%26gl%3Dus&ved=2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0QIDAFegQIBBAE" style="text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer; display: block; padding: 7px 18px; outline: 0px;"></a><a class="fl" href="https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:sq_ezpzc4y8J:https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/exxon-first-amendment_us_571662c6e4b0060ccda46d63+&cd=6&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search%3Fq%3Dcache:sq_ezpzc4y8J:https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/exxon-first-amendment_us_571662c6e4b0060ccda46d63%2B%26cd%3D6%26hl%3Den%26ct%3Dclnk%26gl%3Dus&ved=2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0QIDAFegQIBBAE" style="text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer; display: block; padding: 7px 18px; outline: 0px;"></a><a class="fl" href="https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:sq_ezpzc4y8J:https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/exxon-first-amendment_us_571662c6e4b0060ccda46d63+&cd=6&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search%3Fq%3Dcache:sq_ezpzc4y8J:https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/exxon-first-amendment_us_571662c6e4b0060ccda46d63%2B%26cd%3D6%26hl%3Den%26ct%3Dclnk%26gl%3Dus&ved=2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0QIDAFegQIBBAE" style="text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer; display: block; padding: 7px 18px; outline: 0px;"></a><a class="fl" href="https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:sq_ezpzc4y8J:https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/exxon-first-amendment_us_571662c6e4b0060ccda46d63+&cd=6&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search%3Fq%3Dcache:sq_ezpzc4y8J:https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/exxon-first-amendment_us_571662c6e4b0060ccda46d63%2B%26cd%3D6%26hl%3Den%26ct%3Dclnk%26gl%3Dus&ved=2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0QIDAFegQIBBAE" style="text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer; display: block; padding: 7px 18px; outline: 0px;"></a><a class="fl" href="https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:sq_ezpzc4y8J:https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/exxon-first-amendment_us_571662c6e4b0060ccda46d63+&cd=6&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search%3Fq%3Dcache:sq_ezpzc4y8J:https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/exxon-first-amendment_us_571662c6e4b0060ccda46d63%2B%26cd%3D6%26hl%3Den%26ct%3Dclnk%26gl%3Dus&ved=2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0QIDAFegQIBBAE" style="text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer; display: block; padding: 7px 18px; outline: 0px;"></a><a class="fl" href="https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:sq_ezpzc4y8J:https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/exxon-first-amendment_us_571662c6e4b0060ccda46d63+&cd=6&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search%3Fq%3Dcache:sq_ezpzc4y8J:https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/exxon-first-amendment_us_571662c6e4b0060ccda46d63%2B%26cd%3D6%26hl%3Den%26ct%3Dclnk%26gl%3Dus&ved=2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0QIDAFegQIBBAE" style="text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer; display: block; padding: 7px 18px; outline: 0px;"></a><a class="fl" href="https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:sq_ezpzc4y8J:https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/exxon-first-amendment_us_571662c6e4b0060ccda46d63+&cd=6&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search%3Fq%3Dcache:sq_ezpzc4y8J:https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/exxon-first-amendment_us_571662c6e4b0060ccda46d63%2B%26cd%3D6%26hl%3Den%26ct%3Dclnk%26gl%3Dus&ved=2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0QIDAFegQIBBAE" style="text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer; display: block; padding: 7px 18px; outline: 0px;"></a><a class="fl" href="https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:sq_ezpzc4y8J:https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/exxon-first-amendment_us_571662c6e4b0060ccda46d63+&cd=6&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search%3Fq%3Dcache:sq_ezpzc4y8J:https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/exxon-first-amendment_us_571662c6e4b0060ccda46d63%2B%26cd%3D6%26hl%3Den%26ct%3Dclnk%26gl%3Dus&ved=2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0QIDAFegQIBBAE" style="text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer; display: block; padding: 7px 18px; outline: 0px;" /><a class="fl" href="https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:sq_ezpzc4y8J:https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/exxon-first-amendment_us_571662c6e4b0060ccda46d63+&cd=6&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search%3Fq%3Dcache:sq_ezpzc4y8J:https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/exxon-first-amendment_us_571662c6e4b0060ccda46d63%2B%26cd%3D6%26hl%3Den%26ct%3Dclnk%26gl%3Dus&ved=2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0QIDAFegQIBBAE" style="text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer; display: block; padding: 7px 18px; outline: 0px;" /><a class="fl" href="https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:sq_ezpzc4y8J:https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/exxon-first-amendment_us_571662c6e4b0060ccda46d63+&cd=6&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search%3Fq%3Dcache:sq_ezpzc4y8J:https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/exxon-first-amendment_us_571662c6e4b0060ccda46d63%2B%26cd%3D6%26hl%3Den%26ct%3Dclnk%26gl%3Dus&ved=2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0QIDAFegQIBBAE" style="text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer; display: block; padding: 7px 18px; outline: 0px;" /><a class="fl" href="https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:sq_ezpzc4y8J:https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/exxon-first-amendment_us_571662c6e4b0060ccda46d63+&cd=6&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search%3Fq%3Dcache:sq_ezpzc4y8J:https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/exxon-first-amendment_us_571662c6e4b0060ccda46d63%2B%26cd%3D6%26hl%3Den%26ct%3Dclnk%26gl%3Dus&ved=2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0QIDAFegQIBBAE" style="text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer; display: block; padding: 7px 18px; outline: 0px;" /><a class="fl" href="https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:sq_ezpzc4y8J:https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/exxon-first-amendment_us_571662c6e4b0060ccda46d63+&cd=6&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search%3Fq%3Dcache:sq_ezpzc4y8J:https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/exxon-first-amendment_us_571662c6e4b0060ccda46d63%2B%26cd%3D6%26hl%3Den%26ct%3Dclnk%26gl%3Dus&ved=2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0QIDAFegQIBBAE" style="text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer; display: block; padding: 7px 18px; outline: 0px;" /><a class="fl" href="https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:sq_ezpzc4y8J:https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/exxon-first-amendment_us_571662c6e4b0060ccda46d63+&cd=6&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search%3Fq%3Dcache:sq_ezpzc4y8J:https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/exxon-first-amendment_us_571662c6e4b0060ccda46d63%2B%26cd%3D6%26hl%3Den%26ct%3Dclnk%26gl%3Dus&ved=2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0QIDAFegQIBBAE" style="text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer; display: block; padding: 7px 18px; outline: 0px;"></a><a class="fl" href="https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:sq_ezpzc4y8J:https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/exxon-first-amendment_us_571662c6e4b0060ccda46d63+&cd=6&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search%3Fq%3Dcache:sq_ezpzc4y8J:https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/exxon-first-amendment_us_571662c6e4b0060ccda46d63%2B%26cd%3D6%26hl%3Den%26ct%3Dclnk%26gl%3Dus&ved=2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0QIDAFegQIBBAE" style="text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer; display: block; padding: 7px 18px; outline: 0px;" /><a href="https://newrepublic.com/article/113294/how-corporations-hijacked-first-amendment-evade-regulation" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://newrepublic.com/article/113294/how-corporations-hijacked-first-amendment-evade-regulation&ved=2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0QFjAGegQIARAB" style="cursor: pointer; text-decoration-line: none;" /><h3 class="LC20lb" style="font-weight: normal; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; display: inline-block;"><a href="https://newrepublic.com/article/113294/how-corporations-hijacked-first-amendment-evade-regulation" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://newrepublic.com/article/113294/how-corporations-hijacked-first-amendment-evade-regulation&ved=2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0QFjAGegQIARAB" style="cursor: pointer; text-decoration-line: none;"></a><a href="https://newrepublic.com/article/113294/how-corporations-hijacked-first-amendment-evade-regulation" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://newrepublic.com/article/113294/how-corporations-hijacked-first-amendment-evade-regulation&ved=2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0QFjAGegQIARAB" style="cursor: pointer; text-decoration-line: none;"></a><a href="https://newrepublic.com/article/113294/how-corporations-hijacked-first-amendment-evade-regulation" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://newrepublic.com/article/113294/how-corporations-hijacked-first-amendment-evade-regulation&ved=2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0QFjAGegQIARAB" style="cursor: pointer; text-decoration-line: none;"></a><a href="https://newrepublic.com/article/113294/how-corporations-hijacked-first-amendment-evade-regulation" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://newrepublic.com/article/113294/how-corporations-hijacked-first-amendment-evade-regulation&ved=2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0QFjAGegQIARAB" style="cursor: pointer; text-decoration-line: none;"></a><a href="https://newrepublic.com/article/113294/how-corporations-hijacked-first-amendment-evade-regulation" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://newrepublic.com/article/113294/how-corporations-hijacked-first-amendment-evade-regulation&ved=2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0QFjAGegQIARAB" style="cursor: pointer; text-decoration-line: none;"></a><a href="https://newrepublic.com/article/113294/how-corporations-hijacked-first-amendment-evade-regulation" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://newrepublic.com/article/113294/how-corporations-hijacked-first-amendment-evade-regulation&ved=2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0QFjAGegQIARAB" style="cursor: pointer; text-decoration-line: none;"></a><a href="https://newrepublic.com/article/113294/how-corporations-hijacked-first-amendment-evade-regulation" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://newrepublic.com/article/113294/how-corporations-hijacked-first-amendment-evade-regulation&ved=2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0QFjAGegQIARAB" style="cursor: pointer; text-decoration-line: none;"></a><a href="https://newrepublic.com/article/113294/how-corporations-hijacked-first-amendment-evade-regulation" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://newrepublic.com/article/113294/how-corporations-hijacked-first-amendment-evade-regulation&ved=2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0QFjAGegQIARAB" style="cursor: pointer; text-decoration-line: none;"></a><a href="https://newrepublic.com/article/113294/how-corporations-hijacked-first-amendment-evade-regulation" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://newrepublic.com/article/113294/how-corporations-hijacked-first-amendment-evade-regulation&ved=2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0QFjAGegQIARAB" style="cursor: pointer; text-decoration-line: none;"></a><a href="https://newrepublic.com/article/113294/how-corporations-hijacked-first-amendment-evade-regulation" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://newrepublic.com/article/113294/how-corporations-hijacked-first-amendment-evade-regulation&ved=2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0QFjAGegQIARAB" style="cursor: pointer; text-decoration-line: none;"></a><a href="https://newrepublic.com/article/113294/how-corporations-hijacked-first-amendment-evade-regulation" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://newrepublic.com/article/113294/how-corporations-hijacked-first-amendment-evade-regulation&ved=2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0QFjAGegQIARAB" style="cursor: pointer; text-decoration-line: none;"></a><a href="https://newrepublic.com/article/113294/how-corporations-hijacked-first-amendment-evade-regulation" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://newrepublic.com/article/113294/how-corporations-hijacked-first-amendment-evade-regulation&ved=2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0QFjAGegQIARAB" style="cursor: pointer; text-decoration-line: none;"></a><a href="https://newrepublic.com/article/113294/how-corporations-hijacked-first-amendment-evade-regulation" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://newrepublic.com/article/113294/how-corporations-hijacked-first-amendment-evade-regulation&ved=2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0QFjAGegQIARAB" style="cursor: pointer; text-decoration-line: none;"></a><a href="https://newrepublic.com/article/113294/how-corporations-hijacked-first-amendment-evade-regulation" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://newrepublic.com/article/113294/how-corporations-hijacked-first-amendment-evade-regulation&ved=2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0QFjAGegQIARAB" style="cursor: pointer; text-decoration-line: none;"></a><a href="https://newrepublic.com/article/113294/how-corporations-hijacked-first-amendment-evade-regulation" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://newrepublic.com/article/113294/how-corporations-hijacked-first-amendment-evade-regulation&ved=2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0QFjAGegQIARAB" style="cursor: pointer; text-decoration-line: none;"></a><a href="https://newrepublic.com/article/113294/how-corporations-hijacked-first-amendment-evade-regulation" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://newrepublic.com/article/113294/how-corporations-hijacked-first-amendment-evade-regulation&ved=2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0QFjAGegQIARAB" style="cursor: pointer; text-decoration-line: none;"></a><a href="https://newrepublic.com/article/113294/how-corporations-hijacked-first-amendment-evade-regulation" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://newrepublic.com/article/113294/how-corporations-hijacked-first-amendment-evade-regulation&ved=2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0QFjAGegQIARAB" style="cursor: pointer; text-decoration-line: none;"></a><a href="https://newrepublic.com/article/113294/how-corporations-hijacked-first-amendment-evade-regulation" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://newrepublic.com/article/113294/how-corporations-hijacked-first-amendment-evade-regulation&ved=2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0QFjAGegQIARAB" style="cursor: pointer; text-decoration-line: none;"></a><a href="https://newrepublic.com/article/113294/how-corporations-hijacked-first-amendment-evade-regulation" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://newrepublic.com/article/113294/how-corporations-hijacked-first-amendment-evade-regulation&ved=2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0QFjAGegQIARAB" style="cursor: pointer; text-decoration-line: none;"></a><a href="https://newrepublic.com/article/113294/how-corporations-hijacked-first-amendment-evade-regulation" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://newrepublic.com/article/113294/how-corporations-hijacked-first-amendment-evade-regulation&ved=2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0QFjAGegQIARAB" style="cursor: pointer; text-decoration-line: none;"></a><a href="https://newrepublic.com/article/113294/how-corporations-hijacked-first-amendment-evade-regulation" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://newrepublic.com/article/113294/how-corporations-hijacked-first-amendment-evade-regulation&ved=2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0QFjAGegQIARAB" style="cursor: pointer; text-decoration-line: none;"></a><a href="https://newrepublic.com/article/113294/how-corporations-hijacked-first-amendment-evade-regulation" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://newrepublic.com/article/113294/how-corporations-hijacked-first-amendment-evade-regulation&ved=2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0QFjAGegQIARAB" style="cursor: pointer; text-decoration-line: none;"></a><a href="https://newrepublic.com/article/113294/how-corporations-hijacked-first-amendment-evade-regulation" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://newrepublic.com/article/113294/how-corporations-hijacked-first-amendment-evade-regulation&ved=2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0QFjAGegQIARAB" style="cursor: pointer; text-decoration-line: none;"></a><a href="https://newrepublic.com/article/113294/how-corporations-hijacked-first-amendment-evade-regulation" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://newrepublic.com/article/113294/how-corporations-hijacked-first-amendment-evade-regulation&ved=2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0QFjAGegQIARAB" style="cursor: pointer; text-decoration-line: none;"></a><a href="https://newrepublic.com/article/113294/how-corporations-hijacked-first-amendment-evade-regulation" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://newrepublic.com/article/113294/how-corporations-hijacked-first-amendment-evade-regulation&ved=2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0QFjAGegQIARAB" style="cursor: pointer; text-decoration-line: none;"></a><a href="https://newrepublic.com/article/113294/how-corporations-hijacked-first-amendment-evade-regulation" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://newrepublic.com/article/113294/how-corporations-hijacked-first-amendment-evade-regulation&ved=2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0QFjAGegQIARAB" style="cursor: pointer; text-decoration-line: none;"></a><a href="https://newrepublic.com/article/113294/how-corporations-hijacked-first-amendment-evade-regulation" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://newrepublic.com/article/113294/how-corporations-hijacked-first-amendment-evade-regulation&ved=2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0QFjAGegQIARAB" style="cursor: pointer; text-decoration-line: none;"></a><a href="https://newrepublic.com/article/113294/how-corporations-hijacked-first-amendment-evade-regulation" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://newrepublic.com/article/113294/how-corporations-hijacked-first-amendment-evade-regulation&ved=2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0QFjAGegQIARAB" style="cursor: pointer; text-decoration-line: none;"></a><a class="fl" href="https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:sq_ezpzc4y8J:https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/exxon-first-amendment_us_571662c6e4b0060ccda46d63+&cd=6&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search%3Fq%3Dcache:sq_ezpzc4y8J:https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/exxon-first-amendment_us_571662c6e4b0060ccda46d63%2B%26cd%3D6%26hl%3Den%26ct%3Dclnk%26gl%3Dus&ved=2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0QIDAFegQIBBAE" style="text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer; display: block; padding: 7px 18px; outline: 0px;"></a><a href="https://newrepublic.com/article/113294/how-corporations-hijacked-first-amendment-evade-regulation" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://newrepublic.com/article/113294/how-corporations-hijacked-first-amendment-evade-regulation&ved=2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0QFjAGegQIARAB" style="cursor: pointer; text-decoration-line: none;" /><a href="https://newrepublic.com/article/113294/how-corporations-hijacked-first-amendment-evade-regulation" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://newrepublic.com/article/113294/how-corporations-hijacked-first-amendment-evade-regulation&ved=2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0QFjAGegQIARAB" style="cursor: pointer; text-decoration-line: none;">How Corporations Hijacked the First Amendment to Evade Regulation ...</a></h3>
<div class="TbwUpd" style="padding-bottom: 3px; padding-top: 2px; display: inline-block;"><cite class="iUh30" style="font-style: normal; padding-top: 1px;">https://newrepublic.com/.../how-corporations-hijacked-first-amendment-evade-regulat...</cite></div><div class="action-menu ab_ctl" style="display: inline; position: relative; margin: 1px 3px 0px; user-select: none; vertical-align: middle;"><a class="GHDvEf ab_button" href="https://www.google.com/search?q=exxon+first+1st+amendment+lie&oq=exxon+first+1st+amendment+lie&aqs=chrome..69i57.10515j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#" id="am-b6" aria-label="Result Options" aria-expanded="false" aria-haspopup="true" role="button" jsaction="m.tdd;keydown:m.hbke;keypress:m.mskpe" data-ved="2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0Q7B0wBnoECAEQAg" style="border-radius: 0px; cursor: default; font-weight: bold; height: 12px; line-height: 27px; margin: 1px 0px 2px; min-width: 0px; padding: 0px; text-align: center; transition: none 0s ease 0s; user-select: none; background-image: none; border: 0px; box-shadow: 0px 0px 0px 0px; filter: none; width: 13px; text-decoration-line: none; display: inline-block;"><span class="mn-dwn-arw" style="text-align: left; border-color: rgb(0, 102, 33) transparent; border-style: solid; border-width: 5px 4px 0px; width: 0px; height: 0px; margin-left: 3px; top: 7.5px; margin-top: -4px; position: absolute; left: 0px;" /></a><div class="action-menu-panel ab_dropdown" role="menu" tabindex="-1" jsaction="keydown:m.hdke;mouseover:m.hdhne;mouseout:m.hdhue" data-ved="2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0QqR8wBnoECAEQAw" style="background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; border: 1px solid rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.2); padding: 0px; position: absolute; right: auto; top: 12px; white-space: nowrap; z-index: 3; transition: opacity 0.218s ease 0s; box-shadow: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.2) 0px 2px 4px; left: 0px; visibility: hidden;"><ol style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px;"><li class="action-menu-item ab_dropdownitem" role="menuitem" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; list-style: none; user-select: none; cursor: pointer;"><a class="fl" href="https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:PevatM0PDdwJ:https://newrepublic.com/article/113294/how-corporations-hijacked-first-amendment-evade-regulation+&cd=7&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search%3Fq%3Dcache:PevatM0PDdwJ:https://newrepublic.com/article/113294/how-corporations-hijacked-first-amendment-evade-regulation%2B%26cd%3D7%26hl%3Den%26ct%3Dclnk%26gl%3Dus&ved=2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0QIDAGegQIARAE" style="text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer; display: block; padding: 7px 18px; outline: 0px;" /></li><li class="action-menu-item ab_dropdownitem" role="menuitem" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; list-style: none; user-select: none; cursor: pointer;"><a class="fl" href="https://www.google.com/search?q=related:https://newrepublic.com/article/113294/how-corporations-hijacked-first-amendment-evade-regulation+exxon+first+1st+amendment+lie&tbo=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0QHzAGegQIARAF" style="text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer; display: block; padding: 7px 18px; outline: 0px;" /></li></ol></div></div></div><div class="s" style="max-width: 48em; line-height: 18px;"><a class="fl" href="https://www.google.com/search?q=related:https://newrepublic.com/article/113294/how-corporations-hijacked-first-amendment-evade-regulation+exxon+first+1st+amendment+lie&tbo=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0QHzAGegQIARAF" style="text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer; display: block; padding: 7px 18px; outline: 0px;"></a><a class="fl" href="https://www.google.com/search?q=related:https://newrepublic.com/article/113294/how-corporations-hijacked-first-amendment-evade-regulation+exxon+first+1st+amendment+lie&tbo=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0QHzAGegQIARAF" style="text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer; display: block; padding: 7px 18px; outline: 0px;">Jun 2, 2013 - But when it comes to the First Amendment, we live in interesting times. ... Last summer, the tobacco industry used the First Amendment to have ..... Every time that strategy succeeds, the under- lying debate is placed beyond ...</a></div></div></div></div></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><a class="fl" href="https://www.google.com/search?q=related:https://newrepublic.com/article/113294/how-corporations-hijacked-first-amendment-evade-regulation+exxon+first+1st+amendment+lie&tbo=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0QHzAGegQIARAF" style="text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer; display: block; padding: 7px 18px; outline: 0px;">=</a></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><a class="fl" href="https://www.google.com/search?q=related:https://newrepublic.com/article/113294/how-corporations-hijacked-first-amendment-evade-regulation+exxon+first+1st+amendment+lie&tbo=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0QHzAGegQIARAF" style="text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer; display: block; padding: 7px 18px; outline: 0px;">trump blocks ppl on twitter:</a></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><div><a class="fl" href="https://www.google.com/search?q=related:https://newrepublic.com/article/113294/how-corporations-hijacked-first-amendment-evade-regulation+exxon+first+1st+amendment+lie&tbo=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0QHzAGegQIARAF" style="text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer; display: block; padding: 7px 18px; outline: 0px;">=</a></div><div><a class="fl" href="https://www.google.com/search?q=related:https://newrepublic.com/article/113294/how-corporations-hijacked-first-amendment-evade-regulation+exxon+first+1st+amendment+lie&tbo=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0QHzAGegQIARAF" style="text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer; display: block; padding: 7px 18px; outline: 0px;">wtf mccutcheon</a></div><div><a class="fl" href="https://www.google.com/search?q=related:https://newrepublic.com/article/113294/how-corporations-hijacked-first-amendment-evade-regulation+exxon+first+1st+amendment+lie&tbo=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0QHzAGegQIARAF" style="text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer; display: block; padding: 7px 18px; outline: 0px;">
</a></div><div><a class="fl" href="https://www.google.com/search?q=related:https://newrepublic.com/article/113294/how-corporations-hijacked-first-amendment-evade-regulation+exxon+first+1st+amendment+lie&tbo=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0QHzAGegQIARAF" style="text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer; display: block; padding: 7px 18px; outline: 0px;">https://knightcolumbia.org/sites/default/files/content/CRF_amicus_Knight_v_Trump.pdf</a></div><div><a class="fl" href="https://www.google.com/search?q=related:https://newrepublic.com/article/113294/how-corporations-hijacked-first-amendment-evade-regulation+exxon+first+1st+amendment+lie&tbo=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0QHzAGegQIARAF" style="text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer; display: block; padding: 7px 18px; outline: 0px;">
</a></div><div><a class="fl" href="https://www.google.com/search?q=related:https://newrepublic.com/article/113294/how-corporations-hijacked-first-amendment-evade-regulation+exxon+first+1st+amendment+lie&tbo=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj1xL6Qp6zeAhUFVd8KHT9kC-0QHzAGegQIARAF" style="text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer; display: block; padding: 7px 18px; outline: 0px;"></a><a href="http://www.coolidgereagan.org/crf-amici-kfai-v-trump">http://www.coolidgereagan.org/crf-amici-kfai-v-trump</a></div><div>
</div><div>Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University,</div><div>
</div><div>Rebecca Buckwalter, Phillip Cohen, Holly Figueroa, Eugene Gu,Brandon Neely, Joseph Papp, and Nicholas Pappas,Plaintiffs-Appellees,  v. Donald J. Trump, President of the United States, and Daniel Scavino, White House Director of Social Media and Assistant to the President,Defendants-Appellants.On Appeal from the U.S. District Courtfor the Southern District of New YorkBRIEF OF AMICUS COOLIDGE-REAGAN FOUNDATION IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS_Dan BackerPOLITICAL.LAW PLLC</div><div>
</div><div>441 N. Lee Street, Suite 300 Alexandria, VA 22314 (202) 210-5431 dan@political.lawCounsel for Amicus Coolidge- Reagan Foundation*Application for admission pending</div><div>...</div><div>CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Amicus Coolidge-Reagan Foundation has no parent corporation, and no publicly held corporation owns 10% or more of its stock.</div><div>...</div><div>CRF presents this brief because it believes the district court has misconstrued the First Amendment in this case, and its ruling could have problematic consequences for other areas of law. CRF’s President, undersigned counsel Dan Backer, has authorized it to file this brief. ARGUMENT I. THE DISTRICT COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE ADJUDICATED THE KNIGHT FIRST AMENDMENT INSTITUTE’S CLAIMS The district court erred by adjudicating the;"> Institute’s claims because the Institute lacked standing to complain of the President’s decision to block the individual, non-institutional plaintiffs (hereafter, “Blocked Users”) from Twitter. Moreover, the district court’s ruling in favor of the Blocked Users mooted the Institute’s claims, resolving its Article III case or controversy against the Government. Finally, given the tremendously different legal consequences between</div><div>... </div><div>=</div></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">common scam/distortion:</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
avuncular happy warrior often on pbs newshour<a href="https://www.alternet.org/trump-backer-rants-about-his-first-amendment-rights-after-host-accuses-him-using-fancy-rhetorical" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">https://www.alternet.org/trump-backer-rants-about-his-first-amendment-rights-after-host-accuses-him-using-fancy-rhetorical</a>CNN’s Alisyn Camerota on Wednesday battled conservative Matt Schlapp over the legal implications of Donald Trump’s former personal lawyer and onetime campaign chairman both landing on the wrong side of the law, after Michael Cohen struck a plea deal with the Southern District of New York on the same day Paul Manafort was convicted of eight counts in the Eastern District of Virginia.Asked if Cohen’s plea deal impacts his support of Trump, Schlapp insisted the only thing made clear by the deal is that the president’s personal attorney, like Manafort, “had an elaborate scheme to not pay their taxes and committed a lot of financial crimes and in Cohen's case, because they had him over a barrel.”“I believe what happened is Michael Cohen pled to charges that are actually not crimes according to the FEC but that are an attempt to try to do anything to connect Cohen's wrongdoing to potential wrongdoing by Trump, and I think it’s a travesty,” Schlapp argued.  “I don't believe that the transactions associated with these two people are FEC crimes and I believe that Michael Cohen pled guilty to crimes in the plea deal that aren't in fact crimes,” he later said.“What I think you're doing is a lot of fancy rhetorical footwork,” Camerota replied.“I'm answering your question,” Schlapp shot back.“My question to you was does at all affect your support of Donald Trump knowing these things?”Schlapp rehashed the conservative talking point that he knew “Donald Trump had an extravagant life-style” and “nobody in my party or nobody of the folks that made up the Trump coalition were naive to the fact of the life he had.”“So you were okay with those things?” Camerota asked, referring to Trump’s payouts to multiple women who claim they’ve had affairs with the president.“No, I never said I was okay with those things,” Schlapp claimed, before complaining that Camerota was treating him with less respect than she had with her previous guest.“I would like this interview to be along the same tone as Elizabeth Warren just had,” Schalpp whined. “Ask your questions and let me answer them.”“I'd like that, Matt, but you have to answer my questions and not redirect,” Camerota said.“I get to do whatever I want,” Schapp insisted. “I have a First Amendment right to answer. I will answer any question you pose to me. If you're going to turn this into a morals case against Donald Trump what the reason for the special counsel was to determine whether or not there was collusion with Putin's government, I think that that is the ultimate redirect and I think it bastardizes the very reason for this investigation.”...</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">=</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/2018/01/02/suing-spree-oil-and-gas-industry-risks-speech-chilling-precedents">https://www.desmogblog.com/2018/01/02/suing-spree-oil-and-gas-industry-risks-speech-chilling-precedents</a></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">In 2017, while the Trump administration absorbed media attention with its cries of “fake news,” the oil and gas industry was busy launching private legal actions across the U.S., attacking critics who presented information and opinions to the public.Those lesser-noticed legal maneuvers, if successful in 2018, could create chilling new precedents, keeping important facts away from the public eye and making it more expensive and risky to talk about the fossil fuel industry's real and potential impacts on human health and the air, land, and water.The past year brought some of the most aggressive lawsuits by the oil and gas industry against environmentalists in recent decades. They included legal moves aimed at preventing researchers from discussing their findings, motions painting political movements as for-profit conspiracies, and even a $5 million dollar lawsuit brought against a cancer patient whose tap water, state investigators <a href="http://files.dep.state.pa.us/OilGas/OilGasLandingPageFiles/FinalCO&A121510.pdf" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">determined</a> years ago, was contaminated by gas drilling — by the company that is now suing him.That lawsuit, filed by a shale gas drilling company, claims that a Pennsylvania landowner violated a non-disclosure agreement by talking to the press about his fouled drinking water, his home's plummeting property value, the impacts of truck traffic on his community, the poor air quality around his home since drilling and fracking began in the area, or other problems he believes the company itself caused.These oil and gas industry cases — involving novel uses of conspiracy, defamation, and even wire fraud laws — represent new and concerted efforts by large corporations to make individuals and groups pay for presenting information and opinions to the public.<h3 style="line-height: 1.28205em; margin-top: 1.28205em; margin-bottom: 1.28205em;">Cancer Patient Gagged</h3>Dimock, Pennsylvania, landowner Ray Kemble, who was diagnosed with bladder cancer in March 2017, was sued in August by Cabot Oil and Gas, which drilled a series of Marcellus shale wells in Kemble's hometown.Back in 2010 state environmental regulators <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/2017/04/11/dimock-pennsylvania-families-cabot-fracking-drilling-judge-scraps-water-pollution-verdict" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">concluded</a> that Cabot Oil and Gas's drilling operations had contaminated the area's groundwater and ordered the company to cough up $4.6 million. In May 2016, federal health officials <a href="https://www.eenews.net/stories/1060037920" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">concluded</a> that the drinking water in Dimock was indeed unsafe, and in December 2016, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) long-awaited national study warned that hyulic fracturing (fracking) has contaminated drinking water supplies across the U.S. (without directly commenting on Kemble's situation).Cabot signed settlements with virtually all of the families wing water from the contaminated Pennsylvania aquifer, though the precise terms of those agreements remain secret. A separate federal lawsuit, brought by two families down the road from Kemble, the Elys and the Huberts, was <a href="https://stateimpact.npr.org/pennsylvania/2017/09/26/last-two-dimock-families-settle-lawsuit-with-cabot-over-water/" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">settled in September</a> for an undisclosed amount, a sign that the Ely and Hubert settlement also includes a non-disclosure clause.Cabot's new lawsuit argues that a 2012 settlement bars Kemble from “disparaging” the company by discussing any harm he believes the company caused him — or even talking about things the company did after the settlement was reached.But good luck finding out what exactly a settlement agreement between Kemble and the company might have said: In December, Cabot <a href="http://www.susqcoindy.com/PS/2017/12/21/in-court-cabot-kemble-argue-case/" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">argued in court</a> that it didn't need to provide the document at the heart of the case to the attorneys representing Kemble's co-defendents, nevermind the public.Non-disparagement and non-disclosure agreements have been in the public spotlight lately amid the #MeToo scandals, after it came to light that powerful sexual harassers and assaulters frequently <a href="https://www.salon.com/2017/12/10/how-non-disclosure-agreements-silence-victims/" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">used the clauses</a> to prevent those they assaulted from talking publicly.Critics argue that non-disclosure and non-disparagement agreements (NDAs) should also not be used in cases where the public health could be at risk, warning that NDAs could, for example, keep someone sickened after drinking bad water from warning their neighbors about the danger.Legal experts <a href="https://open.mitchellhamline.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1914&context=wmlr" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">have questioned</a> whether courts would ever actually enforce such an order — so the case brought by Cabot against Kemble could set a significant precedent.Cabot also sued Kemble's attorneys and the law firms where they work for representing Kemble in his earlier lawsuit against Cabot, which Kemble withdrew a few months after his cancer diagnosis (Kemble's attorneys <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/2017/08/13/cabot-fracking-5-million-lawsuit-water-contamination-ray-kemble-dimock" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">have cited</a> unspecified “new information” in explaining the decision to drop the case). Kemble's supporters say they fear that by including Kemble's attorneys in the lawsuit, Cabot is trying to make it harder for those harmed by powerful companies to find representation.On December 21, 2017, Susquehanna County Judge Jason J. Legg <a href="http://www.susqcoindy.com/PS/2017/12/21/preliminary-orders-issued-in-cabot-kemble-case/" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">allowed</a> Cabot's claims against the attorneys to go forward, while admonishing Cabot for breaking Pennsylvania's Rules of Civil Procedure by claiming $5 million in damages, even though the rules forbade Cabot to name a specific figure higher than $50,000 in their complaint. The judge noted that the claiming damages of $5 million “may have been designed to attract media attention” and “likely” served no legitimate legal purpose.To Kemble, the lesson is clear. “This is just a way to shut the people up of the county and of the state, and I just don’t think it’s right,” Kemble said, <a href="https://stateimpact.npr.org/pennsylvania/2017/12/12/cabot-oil-wants-money-from-homeowner-for-critical-claims-following-settled-lawsuit/" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">according to NPR's State Impact</a>. “We the people have the right to talk.”<h3 style="line-height: 1.28205em; margin-top: 1.28205em; margin-bottom: 1.28205em;">Stop Citing Working Paper, Gas Supplier Demands</h3>In a December 11, 2017 letter, natural gas supplier Eversource Energy demanded that environmental advocacy group Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) stop citing <a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3072237" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">a study that found evidence</a> that Eversource and another utility legally manipulated natural gas pipeline markets in ways that caused astronomical gas price spikes during cold snaps from mid-2013 to mid-2016.That analysis found that Eversource and Avangrid booked pipeline capacity and then left it unused, driving down New England's natural gas supplies while demand was high, costing New England's power customers over $3.6 billion. This working paper, prepared by a group of researchers including an EDF economist, emphasized that researchers hadn't found that anything the company's did was illegal, but suggested that the laws might need reform.Those price spikes have been heavily touted by pipeline builders, who say they prove that New England needs to build more pipelines to carry fracked natural gas to the northern states in winter. The new study calls into question whether gas shortages were caused by a lack of pipelines or a failure to fully use the ones already built.“Limited pipeline capacity is indeed partly responsible for these extreme prices,” the researchers wrote. “But we also find strong evidence that two firms that held significant shares of the contracts to flow gas on the Algonquin Gas Transmission Pipeline — one of the two major pipelines serving New England — regularly restricted capacity to the region by scheduling deliveries without actually flowing gas.”The cease and desist letter warns EDF that Eversource could sue the environmental group if it continues to cite claims the company describes as “unsupported by fact.”EDF told DeSmog that the study has been presented for peer review, the method the scientific and academic communities use to ensure research is rigorous. “The Working Paper is going through the process for academic publication in a peer-review journal,” EDF spokesperson Jon Coifman told DeSmog. “Versions have been presented at several academic conferences and workshops.”Cease and desist letters are often sought in defamation cases, which allow people and companies to sue when someone harms their reputation by deliberately spreading false factual claims — which means it's unusual to see a cease and desist letter sent over scientific analysis.The study was authored by Levi Marks, PhD candidate at the University of California, Santa Barbara and Charles Mason, Chair in Petroleum and Natural Gas Economics at the University of Wyoming, along with EDF researcher Kristina Mohlin, and Matthew Zaragoza-Watkins, Assistant Professor of Economics at Vanderbilt.In November, Eversource and Avangrid were hit with a class action lawsuit over the same general allegations made in the study. The class action argues that the companies violated consumer protection and anti-trust laws, and unjustly enriched themselves by driving up power prices by 20 percent.EDF has rebuffed the cease and desist demand. “We stand by the analysis and reject this obvious attempt to intimidate and chill legitimate public inquiry,” Coifman <a href="https://www.utilitydive.com/news/eversource-threatens-edf-with-cease-and-desist-over-report-on-gas-capacity/512826/" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">told UtilityDive</a> shortly after receiving Eversource's letter.<h3 style="line-height: 1.28205em; margin-top: 1.28205em; margin-bottom: 1.28205em;">Suing the Grassroots</h3>In August, <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/energy-transfer-partners-bakken-oil-pipeline-through-iowa" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">Dakota Access pipeline</a> builder Energy Transfer Partners (ETP) filed a major lawsuit alleging racketeering and conspiracy by the grassroots environmental movement Earth First!, along with environmental groups Greenpeace and Banktrack.The lawsuit accuses the non-profits of seeking to profit through environmental activism. “Maximizing donations, not saving the environment, is Greenpeace's true objective,” <a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3229327-Complaint.html#document/p2/a379916" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">ETP's complaint alleges</a>, while accusing pipeline opponents of violating anti-racketeering laws (meant to protect against mafia-style organized crime) and characterizing emails and tweets sent by Dakota Access pipeline (DAPL) critics as wire fraud.The lawsuit claims that ETP suffered nearly a billion dollars in damages and seeks to legally bar defendants from engaging in political protests. But civil rights advocates have taken issue with the coporation's approach.“Defendants employed time-honored, lawful means to advance their views, protected by core constitutional rights of free speech and association,” the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) wrote in a friend-of-the-court <a href="https://www.aclu.org/legal-document/etp-v-greenpeace-amicus-brief" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">brief</a> objecting to ETP's claims of racketeering, defamation, and conspiracy. “Under ETP’s theories, ordinary political speech that runs counter to a corporation’s business interests could expose the speaker to enormous, unwarranted liability.”In December, attorneys for Earth First Journal, a publication whose name echoes the name of the activist group Earth First!, arrived in federal court to argue that Earth First! is a social movement based on a shared set of ideas, and not a legal entity like a corporation, and therefore isn't a thing that you can sue.Earth First!, the journal's attorney said, lacks the sorts of characteristics you'd find at something like a corporation, like a leadership structure, employees, or even members.Even if the oil industry's 2017 lawsuits don't make it very far, the specter of defending multi-million dollar legal claims could make non-profits and social movements nervous about publicly criticizing powerful corporations.And that, opponents say, is exactly the point.“Defending major lawsuits like these against deep-pocketed corporations is extremely expensive, time consuming, and stressful, particularly for cash strapped non-profits,” ACLU staff attorney Brian Hauss wrote in a December 6, 2017 <a href="https://www.aclu.org/blog/free-speech/rights-protesters/standing-rock-protest-groups-sued-dakota-access-pipeline-company?page=1&platform=hootsuite" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">post</a>about ETP's 231-page lawsuit. “If the courts have any sense, this case won’t get to trial. But ETP doesn’t need to win in court to do major damage.”</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><div>=</div><div><a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/2018/03/10/exxon-accuses-california-cities-misleading-investors-climate-change">https://www.desmogblog.com/2018/03/10/exxon-accuses-california-cities-misleading-investors-climate-change</a></div><div>
</div><div>In January, ExxonMobil <a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4345487-Exxon-Texas-Petition-Jan-2018.html" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">filed a legal petition</a> seeking to depose more than a dozen city and county government officials in California, <a href="http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/national/article203207749.html" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">claiming that the municipal officials</a> are defrauding investors by not fully disclosing the risks posed by climate change.You read that right. Exxon is legally challenging cities and counties for not talking up the risks of climate change enough to the investors who purchase municipal bonds for those localities. Has Exxon had a change of heart and now become concerned about transparency and the impacts of climate change?Let's take a closer look.Exxon is responding to the municipalities which have <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/legal-us-usa-oil-climatesuits/california-cities-sue-big-oil-firms-over-climate-change-idUSKCN1BV2QM" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">filed lawsuits </a>seeking to hold Exxon and other oil companies accountable for the damages to their cities from sea level rise. Exxon's <a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4345487-Exxon-Texas-Petition-Jan-2018.html" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">legal petition</a> is calling those lawsuits a “conspiracy” because — according to its petition — “A collection of special interests and opportunistic politicians are abusing law enforcement authority and legal process to impose their viewpoint on climate change.”The oil giant goes on to say: “ExxonMobil finds itself directly in that conspiracy’s crosshairs. Even though it has long acknowledged the risks presented by climate change …”You have to give Exxon’s lawyers credit for the sheer audacity of this legal maneuver and the claims that Exxon “has long acknowledged the risks presented by climate change.”According to its legal filing, Exxon just wants to be able to talk about climate change but claims its First Amendment rights are being taken away by the lawsuits the various municipalities have filed:“Through abusive law enforcement tactics and litigation in California, Respondents and others are attempting to stifle ExxonMobil’s exercise, in Texas, of its First Amendment right to participate in the national dialogue about climate change and climate policy.”How the lawsuits have stifled Exxon’s free speech is not clear from the legal document, but law experts say it certainly looks like an attempt to intimidate anyone considering holding Exxon and the industry accountable for the impacts of climate change.“It’s an aggressive move,” <a href="https://www.fordham.edu/info/23129/howard_m_erichson" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">Howard Erichson,</a> a law professor at Fordham with expertise in the procedure and ethics of complex litigation, explained to <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-02-13/exxon-sues-the-suers-in-fierce-bid-to-defeat-climate-lawsuits" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">Bloomberg</a>. “Does Exxon really need these depositions or is Exxon seeking the depositions to harass mayors and city attorneys into dropping their lawsuits?”<h3 style="line-height: 1.28205em; margin-top: 1.28205em; margin-bottom: 1.28205em;">Misleading Investors — Pot Meet Kettle</h3>Exxon’s claim that these municipalities are misleading investors on climate change is interesting because that is — of course — exactly what Exxon has been accused of <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-climatechange-exxon/new-york-prosecutor-says-exxon-misled-investors-on-climate-change-idUSKBN18T1XK" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">in multiple lawsuits</a> and in the national dialogue over climate liability.One recent example of Exxon’s failure to disclose the risks of climate change to investors is its <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/exxon-2018-Energy-and-Carbon-Summary.pdf" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">2018 Energy and Carbon Summary</a>. This is the report in which Exxon says none of its oil and gas reserves are at risk of becoming stranded assets due to climate action and that all of those reserves can be produced and consumed <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/2018/03/08/exxon-fantastical-vision-future-climate-change" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">as the world pursues efforts to limit global warming to 2°C</a> (3.6<a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/2018/03/08/exxon-fantastical-vision-future-climate-change" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">°</a>F).Kathy Mulvey of the <a href="https://www.ucsusa.org/about/staff/staff/kathy-mulvey.html#.Wp6yP2bMxBx" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">Union of Concerned Scientists </a>highlighted how she believes Exxon is misleading investors in a recent statement:<blockquote style="margin: 1.5em 30px;">“Already facing liability from a rising number of climate-related lawsuits, the company has chosen to add another layer of risk by failing to disclose the challenges to its business model posed by assets that may not be profitable to extract in a carbon-constrained world, costly litigation, and climate impacts to its operations. ExxonMobil is leaving its shareholders in the dark as climate change barrels down the tracks.”</blockquote>In an interesting turn of events, Exxon is using the tactic of accusing its opponents of what it appears to be guilty of when it comes to climate risks.<h3 style="line-height: 1.28205em; margin-top: 1.28205em; margin-bottom: 1.28205em;">Panic in San Francisco</h3>San Francisco is one of the cities targeted in Exxon's latest legal effort. The company makes the following claim:<blockquote style="margin: 1.5em 30px;">“The San Francisco Complaint contains panicked allegations about the 'imminent threat of catastrophic storm surge flooding' that global warming purportedly poses to San Francisco.”</blockquote>Yet earlier in the same legal document, Exxon said it had “long acknowledged the risks presented by climate change.” Bit of a change of tone.As for the “panicked allegations” about the threat of flooding in San Francisco, a brand <a href="http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/4/3/eaap9234" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">new peer-reviewed study</a> from UCBerkeley and Arizona State University appears to give San Francisco reason to panic. The study notes that San Francisco is even more vulnerable to sea level rise than previously thought because — unfortunately — <a href="https://www.wired.com/story/sea-level-rise-in-the-sf-bay-area/" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">the city is sinking</a>. When combined with rising seas, concern about the city's future seems to be warranted.Considering sea level rise alone, models show that, on the low end, 20 square miles could be inundated by 2100. But factor in subsiding land and that estimate jumps to almost 50 square miles. The high end? The San Francisco Bay Area is looking at 165 square miles lost.The image below shows various scenarios for San Francisco’s future. The colored sections represent areas that would be experiencing “significant inundation by 2100.” SFO is the city's main airport. [maps]
Scenarios for local land subsidence only (top), sea level rise in 2100 under a business-as-usual emissions pathway (middle), and a combination of the two (bottom) for Foster City, Union City, and San Francisco International Airport (SFO). Credit: Shirzaei and Bürgmann 2018, <a href="http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/4/3/eaap9234.full" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">Science Advances</a><h3 style="line-height: 1.28205em; margin-top: 1.28205em; margin-bottom: 1.28205em;">Exxon Sticking to its Playbook</h3>Exxon has known about the reality of climate change and its contribution to it <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/2016/04/26/there-no-doubt-exxon-knew-co2-pollution-was-global-threat-late-1970s" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">for decades </a>and actively worked to mislead the public, <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/2017/08/29/how-exxon-used-new-york-times-make-you-question-climate-science" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">both directly</a> and by <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/exxonmobil-funding-climate-science-denial" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">funding climate science-denying groups</a>, about that reality ever since. However, 40 years ago when Exxon realized the impact its business was having on the world’s climate, it was much easier to deny the scientific evidence.The idea of regular flooding in <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/02/us/boston-flooding/index.html" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">downtown Boston </a>probably seemed like science fiction at the time. In all likelihood, no one used the phrase <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/09/04/science/global-warming-increases-nuisance-flooding.html" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">“sunny day flooding”</a> back then. Major prosperous cities weren’t <a href="https://www.newstatesman.com/culture/observations/2018/03/cape-town-running-out-water-and-day-zero-looming" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">running out of water</a>. No one was sailing <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/aug/24/russian-tanker-sails-arctic-without-icebreaker-first-time" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">through the Arctic </a>without an icebreaker. Those were different times.The stakes have been raised as today the very real impacts of climate change are much more difficult to deny. But after committing to decades of climate science denial, it appears that Exxon intends to continue that approach and is even upping the ante with aggressive legal actions.Because even though Exxon fails to mention the company’s exposure to climate liability to its investors, the possibility remains that international efforts to address climate change could seriously cut into Exxon’s profits. It should be expected that as the impacts of climate change continue to intensify, Exxon’s attacks on those looking to hold them accountable will ramp up as well.</div><div>
</div><div></div></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><div></div><div><a href="https://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/alt-right-verge-collapse">https://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/alt-right-verge-collapse</a></div><div>
</div><div>no link</div><div>
</div><div><div>March 5, 2018</div><div>Michael Edison Hayden</div><div>Posted with permission from Newsweek</div><div>
</div><div>The white supremacist, alt-right movement that rose during the presidential campaign of President Donald Trump appears to be splintering.</div><div>
</div><div>Kyle Bristow, an attorney and key ally to alt-right leader Richard Spencer said this weekend he was dropping out of politics a day before he was slated to host a white nationalism-themed conference in Detroit, Michigan. As this was happening, other key figures in the movement lashed out at one another in a public way, accusing each other in heated terms of sabotaging their efforts to organize.</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div> </div><div>The chaos, defection and infighting shows a political movement mired in turmoil seven and a half months after appearing united at the deadly Unite the Right event in Charlottesville, Virginia.</div><div>
</div><div>Bristow, a white nationalist lawyer based in Michigan, defected from the movement on Saturday just before his own organization, Foundation for the Marketplace of Ideas, was to hold an event in Detroit on Sunday. The event, which was billed as an opportunity to hash out the direction of the anti-immigrant, anti-Semitic alt-right movement, was cancelled. Spencer, who had been scheduled to attend Bristow’s event ahead of a speaking engagement on Monday at Michigan State University in East Lansing, was forced to hold a small gathering at a private residence as a substitute, he told Newsweek.</div><div>
</div><div>“I support Kyle in whatever path he chooses to take,” Spencer told Newsweek. “We’re in touch.” </div><div>
</div><div>Spencer spoke at Michigan State University in front of a sparse crowd of fewer than 50 people on Monday. He didn't address the subject of splintering in his movement, but acknowledged that the alt-right was going through “growing pains.” The meager turnout for Monday’s rally showed a significant decline from rallies the alt-right held as recently as last October, when slightly more than 200 people showed up to a “White Lives Matter” in Tennessee.</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>Bristow represented Spencer in his attempts to give speeches at several colleges throughout the country, and argued successfully to allow his client a chance to speak Monday at Michigan State University, his own alma mater. He was also an integral and unifying figure in the so-called racist right going back for the better part of a decade. Bristow published in 2010 a novel called White Apocalypse, which detailed violent fantasies directed at Jewish people, people of color and characters that eerily resembled staffers at the Southern Poverty Law Center. He also voiced big plans of creating his own rights group, as a way to defend the alt-right movement on grounds of ;">free speech, and was in the middle of raising money on the crowdsourcing site Patreon toward that goal. Bristow did not respond to a request for comment, but he blamed his exit from the movement on journalists in a statement.</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div> </div><div>“In light of the recent relentless and unjustifiable vilification of me, as well as the mischaracterizations of who I am as a person, I have unilaterally made the decision to provide this clarification and to withw from politics,” Bristow wrote on Saturday in a parting statement to the alt-right, which was published on his wesbite.</div><div>
</div><div>Ryan Lenz of the Southern Poverty law Center told  Newsweek Monday that Bristow's unexpected departure was significant for the movement in part because it would force Spencer to find new representation to continue his current efforts at galvanizing press attention, which typically occur when protesters mobilize to shut down his speaking engagements. Bristow has bragged in the past that Foundation for the Marketplace of Ideas was the “sword and shield of the Alt-Right.” ?</div><div>
</div><div>To be sure, recent turmoil in the alt-right movement has spread beyond Spencer's inner circle. Daily Stormer, a neo-Nazi website that once served as the de facto homepage for young white supremacists, was uncharacteristically silent Monday about Spencer’s speaking appearance at Michigan State University. When Spencer spoke at the University of Florida in October, in contrast, the website promoted that event. The shift may have something to do with Spencer’s recent alignment with the Traditionalist Worker’s Party, a small, neo-Nazi group that has become a regular fixture at alt-right protests throughout the country over the last few years.</div><div>
</div><div>Andrew Anglin, Daily Stormer’s editor, sniped publically at Matt Heimbach, the leader of the Traditionalist Worker’s Party, calling him a “good-natured but socially awkward fat kid” on a popular alt-right forum on Saturday, while denouncing his influence as a leader. Anglin, and his colleague, Andrew “Weev” Auernheimer, took turns ridiculing the presentation of Traditionalist Worker’s Party rallies, suggesting their uniforms and “communist” rhetoric were discouraging people from aligning with their cause.</div><div>
</div><div>“Everyone in the alt-right is a malignant contrarian,” Lenz said about the growing divisions in their movement following the united front the alt-right displayed in Charlottesville. “They come from a culture where insults are the coin of the realm.”</div><div>
</div><div>Anglin and Auernheimer were in turn criticized in a public way on the same forum throughout Saturday and Sunday for linking the alt-right to overt neo-Nazism, violence and misogyny. Auernheimer has publically praised Atomwaffen, for example, a neo-Nazi group linked to a string of brutal murders, a move that has caused embarrassment to Traditionalist Worker’s Party and members of the “Southern Nationalist” outfit League of the South, two groups that marched in Charlottesville last August. Anglin has spoken in sadistic terms about white women, going so far as to celebrate the idea of them being raped and physically abused. </div><div>
</div><div>Daily Stormer are “hypocrites who are clinging to failed reactionary politics,” Heimbach told  Newsweek on Monday about the public collapse into infightin</div></div><div>
</div><div></div></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> =<a href="http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/inmate-sues-prison-imposing-christian-propaganda">http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/inmate-sues-prison-imposing-christian-propaganda</a>Shari Webber-Dunn, an inmate serving a murder charge in Kansas, said her First Amendment rights were violated by "Christian propaganda" imposed by the all-female prison.The lawsuit alleged that the Topeka Correctional Facility in Kansas unconstitutionally embraces Christianity by displaying an eight-foot-tall wooden cross in its basement, publically posting prison-related prayers, soliciting book donations for a spiritual library and offering prayer request submission on a Christian bulletin board. Christian movies are also broadcasted on facility televisions and spiritual quotes are posted at the laundry room workplace, the lawsuit explained.Webber-Dunn believed that the correctional center was "imposing strong Christian values on inmates" and creating "a coercive atmosphere where inmates are pressured to spend their time in a highly religious atmosphere and to participate in religious activities and prayers."Inmates are prohibited from removing anything from the public bulletin boards, which Webber-Dunn said violates the establishment clause prohibiting government agencies from establishing a religion."There is no valid reason why Christian materials should be displayed there in a state-owned and operated correctional facility," the <a href="http://americanhumanist.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Complaint-Final.pdf">lawsuit</a> said, referring to the prison laundry room, where inmates are required to drop off and pick up clothes three times a week.Webber-Dunn wants the religious items removed and the eight-foot cross covered when it's not being used for Christian religious services. She is partnering with the American Humanist Association—a nonprofit organization dedicated to advancing the separation of church and state. The group champions the constitutional rights of humanists and atheists. Webber-Dunn is registered with the prison as a practicing <a href="http://www.kansascity.com/news/local/article174419606.html">Thelemite</a>, a system that encourages people to follow their true will and not interfere with the true will of another person. ...</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">http://www.prwatch.org/news/2017/05/13240/bradley-foundation-bankrolls-front-groups-richard-berman</div><div style="">In addition, Bradley is recommending a $200,000 grant in renewed support for ALEC in 2016 as it continues to build a "comprehensive communications infrastructure" in response to citizen campaigns targeting its funders. The grant summary reads: "ALEC has been under sustained, organized attack from the Left for several years, as well-documented in Bradley Prize recipient Kimberly Strassel's new book The Intimidation Game: How the Left Silences Free Speech. Under Executive Director Lisa Nelson and at Bradley's urging, ALEC is aggressively, but thoughtfully responding." ;">"The plan consciously mimics the Left's Citizen Engagement Laboratory (CEL)...the parent organization of Forecast the Facts and Color of Change."ALEC also redesigned and beefed up its website, deployed more social media, and partnered with CrowdSkout a data analytics company to track, view and engage supporters (ALEC, Grant Proposal Record, 8/16/2016).Bradley outlines the bigger game plan for ALEC: "The larger plan also has an important component for aggressive 'opposition research,' which has yielded many beneficial outcomes, including to Strassel for her helpful book, among others." This last comment in the Bradley documents suggests that ALEC provided Wall Street Journal editorial writer Kim Strassel with information for her book Intimidation Game. In it, Strassel portrayed the sustained citizen campaigning against ALEC as a well-funded, nefarious effort to crush the "free speech" rights of ALEC and its enormous funders, including Koch Industries, ExxonMobil, Pfizer, and ALTRIA/Phillip Morris (Strassel received a $250,000 Bradley Prize in 2014).As part of its opposition research funding, Bradley recommended $115,000 in 2016 for the Capital Research Center run by Bradley-ally Scott Walter to develop "an online encyclopedia of the left" in conjunction with Berman that mimics the Center for Media and Democracy's Sourcewatch.org wiki. CRC wants to focus on the anti-ALEC groups and the Democracy Alliance, a group of liberal funders.</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><div>U.S.</div><div>FEB 18, 11:44 AM EST</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>BUSINESS</div><div>
</div><div>Food Labeling Laws Could Be Undermined By First Amendment Court Challenge</div><div>
</div><div>BY CONNOR ADAMS SHEETS @CONNORASHEETS ON 05/20/14 AT 12:24 PM</div><div>
</div><div>;"> </div></div><div>;">The meat processing industry’s drive to overturn revised country-of-origin labeling (COOL) laws continued Monday, when the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit considered the industry’s argument that the regulations violate free speech laws.</div><div>
</div><div>If the court sides with the meat industry, the fallout could have far-reaching consequences, as it would potentially undermine a wide range of labeling laws, particularly COOL regulations, which require companies to disclose where their products and ingredients are produced and manufactured through the display of packaging labels. Most American consumers are familiar with common COOL labels like "Made in China" or "product of the United States" from everything from sneakers to frozen hamburger patties, even if they are not aware of how exactly they are regulated.</div><div>
</div><div>The meat industry made its case during Monday’s en banc review -- an uncommon type of proceeding conducted before all 11 judges on the court rather than the typical three-judge panel -- that the COOL laws as revised in 2013 infringe on companies’ First Amendment rights by compelling speech.</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>An upcoming court decision could undermine a whole host of food labeling laws that serve to inform consumers about the origins of what they eat. </div><div>
</div><div>;">Chief Judge Merrick Garland said that in order to decide that First Amendment rights were being violated under the regulations, the court would “have to strike down at least half a dozen statutes on the books since the 1930s,” according to Politico. He also pointed out that many products far beyond the scope of the meat industry, including the razor he shaved with Monday morning, are required to display COOL labels, Politico reported.</div><div>
</div><div>As such, a decision by the court that the COOL labels infringe on companies’ free speech rights could mean changes for industries that rest far beyond the food realm.</div><div>
</div><div>A three-judge panel of the court handed down a decision on March 28 suggesting that the en banc hearing on just the First Amendment issues be held at a future date, but otherwise affirming a district court’s decision not to allow a preliminary injunction against the 2013 COOL laws. The case is known as American Meat Institute vs. U.S. Department of Agriculture.</div><div>
</div><div>“We suggest that the full court hear this case en banc to resolve for the circuit whether, under Zauderer, government interests in addition to correcting deception can sustain a commercial speech mandate that compels firms to disclose purely factual and non-controversial information,” the three-judge panel wrote in the March 28 decision.</div><div>
</div><div>The National Farmers Union and other American farmers’ and food production industry groups like the U.S. Cattlemen’s Association and the Consumer Federation of America continue to support the laws, which provide clarity about food origins.</div><div>
</div><div>“The information required by the regulation to be provided is factual and noncontroversial,” NFU President Roger Johnson said, according to the Ohio’s Country Journal agricultural publication. “I am hopeful that the full Circuit will affirm the panel’s prior decision and continue to deny the preliminary injunction requested by appellants.”</div><div>
</div><div>But the American Meat Institute has consistently argued that the laws will have serious negative impacts on the meat industry.</div><div>
</div><div>Related Stories</div><div>Vermont Becomes First State To Mandate GMO Labeling</div><div>Pro-GMO Bill Could Repeal Rules To Label GMOs In Food</div><div>
</div><div>“It is incomprehensible that USDA would finalize a controversial rule that stands to harm American agriculture, when comments on the proposal made clear how deeply and negatively it will impact U.S. meat companies and livestock producers,” AMI Senior Vice President of Regulatory Affairs and General Counsel Mark Dopp said last year. “This rubber stamping of the proposal begs the question of the integrity of the process:  many people spoke, but no one at USDA listened.”</div><div>
</div><div>Food labeling is a major issue in food and agriculture circles, as food safety advocates and right-to-know groups have gone head-to-head with food manufacturers and industry groups over whether foods containing GMOs should be labeled, as well as what exactly labels like “natural” or “organic” should really mean.</div><div>
</div><div>The GMO labeling debate has made headlines in recent months, particularly in Vermont, where Gov. Peter Shumlin signed the nation’s first unconditional mandatory GMO labeling bill into law on May 8.</div><div>
</div><div>The Vermont law is the first in the nation to require a state to begin labeling foods that contain genetically modified ingredients no matter how other states' lawmakers decide to address the issue. Connecticut and Maine had already passed GMO labeling laws, but the launch of their labeling regimes does not begin unless other states pass similar bills.</div></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">=pwl memo : Another significant shift in the law since Powell’s memo was circulated has been the gradual expansion of corporate constitutional rights (referred to by some business groups as “business civil liberties”), especially in the realms of commercial and political speech. The most infamous example is the Supreme Court’s 2010 decision in <em times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large" line-height="line-height" px="px" color="color" rgb="rgb" outline-style="outline-style" none="none" background-color="background-color"><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20141114114235/http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/citizens-united-v-federal-election-commission/" class="zoom" target="blank" https="https" web.archive.org="web.archive.org" web="web" http="http" www.greenpeace.org="www.greenpeace.org" usa="usa" templates="Templates" planet3="Planet3" styles="Styles" images="images" bg-zoom.gif="bg-zoom.gif" px="px" no-repeat="no-repeat" style="outline-style: none; font-style: normal; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; padding: 0px 15px 0px 0px; background-image: url(" background-position="background-position" initial="initial" background-size="background-size" background-repeat="background-repeat" background-attachment="background-attachment" background-origin="background-origin" background-clip="background-clip">Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission</a>. In the commercial sphere, companies have similarly used corporate speech doctrines to challenge various restrictions on corporate advertising (e.g. direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription drugs for off-label uses), limits on media ownership, and product safety labeling requirements (e.g. cigarettes and genetically modified foods).Corporate constitutional rights are regularly claimed (with the implicit threat of litigation) in opposition to new or proposed regulations.;"> One recent example came during recent attacks on regulations created by the Dodd-Frank financial reform package, which contained a provision requiring that companies report their use of tin, gold and other minerals that can be traced back to the conflict-ridden Democratic Republic of the Congo. In its comments to the SEC, <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20141114114235/http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/polluterwatch/The-Lewis-Powell-Memo/judicial/#tiffany" style="outline-style: none; font-stretch: normal;">Tiffany & Co. claimed</a> the SEC rules would “compel speech in a manner that violates the First Amendment.”=<header class="post-header" style="margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-variant-numeric: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline;"><h1 class="post-title" style="margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline;">D.C. Circuit Vacates Dodd-Frank Conflict Minerals Provision & SEC Rule as Violating First Amendment Free Speech</h1><span class="post-byline" style="margin: 0px 0px 5px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; display: block;">By <a href="http://www.linkedin.com/pub/leland-e-lee-beck/12/494/b75" title="Visit Leland E. Beck’s website" rel="author external" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: none; outline: none;">Leland E. Beck</a> on <time class="post-date" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline;">April 14th,;"> 2014</time><span class="post-categories" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; display: block;">Posted in <a href="http://www.fedregsadvisor.com/agency-authority/" rel="category tag" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: none; outline: none;">Agency Authority</a>, <a href="http://www.fedregsadvisor.com/constitutional-issues-in-regulations/" rel="category tag" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: none; outline: none;">Constitutional Issues in Regulations</a>, <a href="http://www.fedregsadvisor.com/regulatory-process/" rel="category tag" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: none; outline: none;">Regulatory Process</a></header><section class="post-content" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-variant-numeric: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline;">The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia today, in <a title="National Association of Manufacturers v. SEC, D.C. Cir. No. 13-5252 (Apr. 14, 2014)" href="http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/D3B5DAF947A03F2785257CBA0053AEF8/$file/13-5252-1488184.pdf" target="blank" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; outline: none;">National Association of Manufacturers v. SEC</a>, affirmed a district court judgment that the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) did not violate procedural requirements or misconstrue the statute in promulgating the Conflict Minerals Rule, but vacated the specific underlying statutory provision and the rule because the requirements compelled speech in violation of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Compelling reporting, disclosure, and publication to the extent that entails “compelled speech” pose a distinct constitutional limitation on both statutes and rulemaking under statutes.  Agencies must consider carefully this developing caselaw in formulating any reporting requirement that will be publicly disclosed – and provide a detailed justification for such requirements in the preamble of any such rule – or counsel for regulated parties will, and should, press judicial review.Dodd-Frank Act:  In the 2010 Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, Congress required the SEC to issue regulations requiring companies using “conflict minerals” – gold, tantalum, tin, and tungsten mined from the Democratic Republic of the Congo or an adjoining country – to investigate and disclose the origin of those minerals.  The statutory scheme applies only to “person[s] described” in the Act – those if conflict minerals are necessary to the functionality or production of a product manufactured by the company.  A covered company must disclose annually, whether the necessary conflict minerals originated in the DRC or an adjoining country.  If so, the company must file a report with the SEC, describing the due diligence measures taken to establish the source and chain of custody of the minerals, including a private sector audit of the report.  The report must also list the products manufactured or contracted to be manufactured that are not “DRC conflict free.”  A product is “DRC conflict free” if it’s necessary conflict minerals did not “directly or indirectly finance or benefit armed groups” in the covered countries.</section></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Sorrell v. <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IMS_Health" title="IMS Health" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">IMS Health</a> Inc., 564 U.S. 552 (2011), was a <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States" title="Supreme Court of the United States" style="background: none; text-decoration: none;">United States Supreme Court</a> case in which the Court held that a ;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vermont" title="Vermont" style="background-image: none; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration: none;">Vermont</a> statute that restricted the sale, disclosure, and use of records that revealed the prescribing practices of individual doctors violated the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution" title="First Amendment to the United States Constitution" style="background-image: none; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration: none;">First Amendment</a>.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorrell_v.IMS_Health_Inc.#cite_note-2" style="background-image: none; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration: none;">[A]</a>
<div id="toc" class="toc" style="border: 1px solid rgb(162, 169, 177); background-color: rgb(248, 249, 250); padding: 7px; display: table; zoom: 1;"><div id="toctitle" style="text-align: left; direction: ltr;"> </div><ul style="list-style-type: none; margin: 0.3em 0px; padding: 0px; list-style-image: none;"><li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-1" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorrell_v.IMS_Health_Inc.#Background" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">1Background</a></li><li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-2" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorrell_v.IMS_Health_Inc.#Opinion" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">2Opinion</a><ul style="list-style-type: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 2em; padding: 0px; list-style-image: none;"><li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-3" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorrell_v.IMS_Health_Inc.#Dissent" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">2.1Dissent</a></li></ul></li><li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-4" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorrell_v.IMS_Health_Inc.#Notes" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">3Notes</a></li><li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-5" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorrell_v.IMS_Health_Inc.#References" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">4References</a></li></ul></div><h2 style="background: none rgb(255, 255, 255); margin: 1em 0px 0.25em; overflow: hidden; padding: 0px; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(162, 169, 177); line-height: 1.3;">Background[<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sorrell_v.IMS_Health_Inc.&action=edit&section=1" title="Edit section: Background" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">edit</a>]</h2>In 2007, Vermont passed the Prescription Confidentiality Law which required among other things that records containing a doctor's prescribing practices not be sold or used for marketing purposes unless the;"> doctor consented. The law was a response to a <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vermont_Medical_Society" title="Vermont Medical Society" style="background: none; text-decoration: none;">Vermont Medical Society</a> resolution stating that using the prescribing history of doctors in marketing was an intrusion into the way doctors practice medicine.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorrell_v.IMS_Health_Inc.#cite_note-3" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">[2]</a><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorrell_v.IMS_Health_Inc.#cite_note-4" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">[3]</a> The Vermont Medical Society had found that the marketing efforts of pharmaceutical companies used in large part the data of individual doctors' prescribing patterns, sold to the companies by pharmacies without the doctors' consent<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorrell_v.IMS_Health_Inc.#cite_note-5" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">[4]</a> and successfully lobbied the Vermont legislature to enact the law.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorrell_v.IMS_Health_Inc.#cite_note-6" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">[5]</a>;">Data mining companies and pharmaceutical manufactures contended that the law violated their First Amendment rights and sought declaratory and injunctive relief against Vermont officials.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorrell_v.IMS_Health_Inc.#cite_note-7" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">[B]</a>;"> The <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_District_Court_for_the_District_of_Vermont" title="United States District Court for the District of Vermont" style="background-image: none; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration: none;">United States District Court for the District of Vermont</a> denied relief; the plaintiffs appealed to the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_Second_Circuit" title="United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit" style="background-image: none; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration: none;">United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit</a> which reversed, holding that the law violated the First Amendment by restricting the speech of the companies without adequate justification.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorrell_v.IMS_Health_Inc.#cite_note-8" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">[C]</a> Vermont's Attorney General appealed to the The Supreme Court, which granted <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Certiorari" title="Certiorari" style="background: none; text-decoration: none;">certiorari</a> to resolve the contradiction of a ruling of the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_First_Circuit" title="United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit" style="background: none; text-decoration: none;">United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit</a> US Court of Appeals for the ;">First Circuit, which had overturned similar laws in New Hampshire and Maine, concluding that the laws regulated economic conduct. not commercial speech.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorrell_v.IMS_Health_Inc.#cite_note-9" style="background-image: none; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration: none;">[6]</a><h2 style="background: none rgb(255, 255, 255); margin: 1em 0px 0.25em; overflow: hidden; padding: 0px; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(162, 169, 177); line-height: 1.3;">Opinion[<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sorrell_v.IMS_Health_Inc.&action=edit&section=2" title="Edit section: Opinion" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">edit</a>]</h2>
The first finding of the Court was that the law placed content and speaker based restrictions on speech.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorrell_v.IMS_Health_Inc.#cite_note-10" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">[D]</a> Citing <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cincinnati_v.Discovery_Network,Inc." class="mw-redirect" title="Cincinnati v. Discovery Network, Inc." style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">Cincinnati v. Discovery Network, Inc.</a>, the Court noted that these restrictions warranted heightened judicial scrutiny.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorrell_v.IMS_Health_Inc.#cite_note-11" style="background: none; text-decoration: none;">[E</a><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorrell_v.IMS_Health_Inc.#cite_note-11" style="background-image: none; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration: none; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">]</a>;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Associate_Justice" title="Associate Justice" style="background-image: none; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration: none;">Associate Justice</a> <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Kennedy" title="Anthony Kennedy" style="background-image: none; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration: none;">Anthony Kennedy</a> delivered the opinion of the Court, which <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chief_Justice_Roberts" class="mw-redirect" title="Chief Justice Roberts" style="background-image: none; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration: none;">Chief Justice Roberts</a>, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice_Scalia" class="mw-redirect" title="Justice Scalia" style="background-image: none; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration: none;">Justice Scalia</a>, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarence_Thomas" title="Clarence Thomas" style="background-image: none; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration: none;">Justice Thomas</a>, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice_Alito" class="mw-redirect" title="Justice Alito" style="background-image: none; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration: none;">Justice Alito</a>, and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice_Sotomayor" class="mw-redirect" title="Justice Sotomayor" style="background-image: none; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration: none;">Justice Sotomayor</a> joined. The Court held that the law violated the First Amendment and affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeals.The Court rejected Vermont's argument that the law was only a commercial regulation and not a regulation of speech on the grounds that the law imposed more than an incidental burden on speech.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorrell_v.IMS_Health_Inc.#cite_note-12" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">[F]</a>The second and final finding of the Court was that Vermont did not meet its burden to justify its content-based law as consistent with the First Amendment. According to <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Board_of_Trustees,State_Univ.of_N.Y.v.Fox" class="mw-redirect" title="Board of Trustees, State Univ. of N. Y. v. Fox" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">Board of Trustees, State Univ. of N. Y. v. Fox</a>, Vermont must demonstrate that the law directly advances a substantial government interest.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorrell_v.IMS_Health_Inc.#cite_note-13" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">[G]</a> The Court rejected Vermont's claims that the law was necessary to protect <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_privacy" title="Medical privacy" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">medical privacy</a> and achieve improved public healthcare.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorrell_v.IMS_Health_Inc.#cite_note-14" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">[H]</a><h3 style="background: none rgb(255, 255, 255); margin: 0.3em 0px 0px; overflow: hidden; padding-top: 0.5em; padding-bottom: 0px; border-bottom: none; line-height: 1.6;">Dissent</h3><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Associate_Justice" title="Associate Justice" style="background-image: none; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration: none;">
;">Associate Justice</a>;"> <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Breyer" title="Stephen Breyer" style="background-image: none; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration: none;">Stephen Breyer</a> wrote a dissenting opinion, which <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice_Ginsburg" class="mw-redirect" title="Justice Ginsburg" style="background-image: none; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration: none;">Justice Ginsburg</a> and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice_Kagan" class="mw-redirect" title="Justice Kagan" style="background-image: none; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration: none;">Justice Kagan</a> joined. Breyer argued that the law should be reviewed as an economic regulation, not under a heightened standard applied for First Amendment issues. Breyer found that the legitimate regulatory objectives outweighed the small harm done to First Amendment interests.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorrell_v.IMS_Health_Inc.#cite_note-16" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">[I]</a> Breyer also noted that applying a strict First Amendment standard whenever a legislative program burdened speech would give judges the power to choose to undermine or support legislative efforts.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorrell_v.IMS_Health_Inc.#cite_note-17" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">[J
]</a></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div>