As New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman’s #ExxonKnew campaign continues to unraveleditorial boards across the country from USA Today to Bloomberg the Washington Post are weighing in, calling the investigations a “dangerous arrogation of power” with “alarming” implications for free speech.


Bloomberg View 11/10/15: “Using the criminal law to shame and encumber companies that do so is a dangerous arrogation of power.”

National Review 7/12/16: “The Democrats are, as we keep pointing out, engaged in a nakedly authoritarian assault on free speech, political debate, and dissent.”

Wall Street Journal 7/7/16: “The climate police would do more for their cause if they spent more time persuading the public on the merits of climate risks and policy. Their resort to abusive government power suggests that they think they have a weak case.”

New York Post 8/21/16: “It’s time for [Schneiderman] to put the public’s interests before his own desire to please enviro-radicals — and end this probe for good.”

Washington Post 11/14/15: “But there’s also a risk whenever law enforcement holds the prospect of criminal penalties over those involved in a scientific debate. Legitimate scientific inquiry depends on allowing strong, even unfair, criticism of the claims that scientists make.”

USA Today 11/22/15: “The most likely effect of a costly legal examination of Exxon’s past statements is a lower stock price, hurting current investors.”

Washington Examiner 6/23/16: “[The AGs] had high hopes, but at this point their Holy Climate Inquisition seems to be running into a legal wall, as well it should.”

Detroit News 3/19/16: “[Whitehouse’s] efforts are an offense to the very principles this nation was founded on, and Lynch should suspend immediately any action her department has taken to chill free speech in the United States.”

Financial Times 4/24/16: “The legal basis for these actions seems flimsy…Beyond that, the implications of the investigations for free speech on public policy issues are alarming.”

Colorado Springs Gazette 5/6/16: “If attorneys general plan to use our courts to bully climate change skeptics, as has been reported, they need to knock it off.”

Pittsburgh Tribune-Review 5/7/16: “This is rank abuse of power. And should it go unchecked, free speech will become a dead letter and scientific inquiry will be rendered into a quaint notion.”

Richmond Times-Dispatch 5/8/16: “If inquisitions like these become accepted practice at one point on the political spectrum, they will soon be adopted by other points along it as well. The result will expose vast swaths of legitimate political discourse on the air, in print, and on the Internet to criminal and regulatory sanction. Then you can kiss your free speech goodbye.”

Charleston Gazette-Mail 5/31/16: “Debate climate change all you want. But what’s becoming undebatable are harmful efforts by the left to squelch the rights of people to disagree with the administration. That is a true threat to American citizens.”

Las Vegas Review-Journal 6/22/16: “In reality, though, Mr. Schneiderman is spearheading a coordinated shakedown designed to punish dissent on [a] hot-button political topic…This is dangerous and bizarre.”

Boston Herald 6/27/16: “Healey should pull out of this foolish effort to basically try to regulate speech.”

Deseret News 7/8/16: “The rule of law and public confidence is fundamentally compromised when law enforcement officers abuse the power of their office in deference to their own personal biases or agendas rather than fairly and consistently enforcing the laws of the land.”

New Hampshire Union Leader 7/12/16: “The draft Democratic party platform calls for criminal prosecution of companies and groups that depart from the approved groupthink on climate. That’s chilling. Democrats should welcome an open debate on climate. Instead, they are employing Orwellian tactics to prevent such a debate.”

Bend Bulletin 8/24/16: “What is righthink about climate change? Can the opinions of a company be held as criminal despite the First Amendment? To what extent must companies disclose risks to their businesses from climate change? Is this really about squashing dissent to climate change orthodoxy? It’s a crazy idea that Rosenblum may be deciding what can be debated about debatable issues.”