BillofRightsDefenseCommittee/

DefendingDissentFoundation

1100GStreetNW,Suite500
Washington,DC20005
www.bordc.org

TheHonorableLamarSmith,Chairman
TheHonorableFrankD.Lucas,ViceChairman
TheHonorableF.JamesSensenbrenner,Jr,Member
TheHonorableDanaRohrabacher,Member
TheHonorableRandyNeugebauer,Member
TheHonorableMoBrooks,Member
TheHonorableBillPosey,Member
TheHonorableJimBridenstine,Chairman,SubcommitteeonEnvironment
TheHonorableRandyWeber,Chairman,SubcommitteeonEnergy
TheHonorableJohnMoolenaar,Member
TheHonorableBrianBabin,Chairman,SubcommitteeonSpace
TheHonorableBarryLoudermilk,Chairman,SubcommitteeonOversight
TheHonorableRalphLeeAbraham,Member
HouseCommitteeonScience,SpaceandTechnology

June13,2016

DearChairmanSmithetal,

TheBillofRightsDefenseCommittee/DefendingDissentFoundation(BORDC/DDF)isa
nationalorganizationthatprotectstherightofpoliticalexpressiontostrengthenparticipatory
democracy,andworkstofulfillthepromiseoftheBillofRightsforeveryone.Wetraceourroots
backtotheNationalCoalitiontoAbolishtheHouseUnAmericanActivitiesCommittee(HUAC),
whichwasfoundedin1960.Wehavea56yeartraditionofstandingupfortheFirstAmendment
rightsofallAmericans,regardlessoftheirpointofview,andmakingsurethatallAmericanscan
expressthemselvesfreelywithoutfearofgovernmentreprisal,harassment,orintimidation.

ItisforthesereasonsthatwereadyourlettersonattemptstoviolatetheFirstAmendment
rightsofscientificresearchers,nonprofits,andcompanieswithgreatinterest.Weagreethatit
wouldbewrongtothreatenscientificresearcherswithprosecutions,becauseoftheirresearch.
However,uponreadingthelettersyousenttoanumberofcivilsocietygroupswediscovered
thatthecommitteememberswhosenttheseletterswereconfusedastothecurrentstateof
FirstAmendmentjurisprudenceandthepointoftheFirstAmendmentmoregenerally.Infact,
wewereamazedtodiscoverthatnotonlyaretheorganizationsyouaccuseofviolatingtheFirst
Amendmentnotinfactdoingso,butwhatyouareaccusingthemofisengaginginFirst

Amendmentprotectedactivity.Asaresult,yourletterscouldbedeemedgovernment
harassmentinretaliationforexerciseofFirstAmendmentprotectedfreedoms.

Aswebelieveyourdesiretohelpindividualstonotfacegovernmentretaliationforexerciseof
FirstAmendmentprotectedspeechisearnest,wecanonlyassumetheselettersweretheresult
ofamisunderstanding.Sincewehavededicated56yearstodefendingtheFirstAmendment,
weconsideritavitalpartofourmissiontoeducateourfellowAmericansaboutit.

Yourlettersappeartobemotivatedbytheannouncementof20stateattorneysgeneralthat
theywilllookintopursuingfraudprosecutionsagainstExxonMobil.Fraudisnotprotectedby
theFirstAmendment,eventhoughinmanycasesitdoesinvolvespeech.Whileourinterestisin
theFirstAmendment,itisworthnotingtheunderlyingtheoriesbehindtheideathatExxonMobil
perpetuatedfraud,asthefactualrealitiesofwhatstateattorneysgeneralaredoingandwhatthe
letterpurportstodenounce,bearlittletonorelationshiptooneanother.Thiscouldbethe
sourceoftheconfusionabouttheFirstAmendmentsapplicabilitytothesituation.

Asearlyasthe1960s,scientistsatExxonMobilreachedtheconclusionsthatclimatechange
wasreal,thatitwasmanmade,andthattheburningoffossilfuelscontributedtoclimate
change.Whilethisviewisacceptedbytheoverwhelmingmajorityofscientiststoday,itwould
appearthatExxonMobilsownscientistwerealittlebitaheadofthecurvewhenitcameto
researchonmanmadeclimatechangeandtheircompanysownroleinit.

Insteadofsharingthisimportantandgroundbreakingscientificdiscovery,ExxonMobilelected
tobothcoveritupanddeceivethepublic.Theyalsowithheldthisinformationfromtheir
investors,eventhoughitconcernedriskstotheirbusinessmodels.Theattemptstoprosecute
ExxonMobilarenotbecausetheyengagedinscientificresearchthatreachedconclusionsat
oddswiththeoverwhelmingmajorityofthescientificcommunity.Theattemptstoprosecute
ExxonMobilarepremisedonthefactthattheybelieved,unlikesomemembersoftheHouse
ScienceCommittee,thattheburningoffossilfuelscontributedtomanmadeclimatechange
anddeliberatelyattemptedtodeceivethepublicastowhattheyknewandliedtotheirinvestors
aboutriskstotheirbusinessmodel.Generallyspeaking,intentionallymakingfalsestatements
withthepurposesofenrichingoneselfconstitutesfraud.

YourlettersalsodocumentavarietyofstatementsmadebycivilsocietygroupsaboutExxon
Mobil.TheFirstAmendmentpreventsthegovernmentfromsuppressingspeech,itdoesnot
immunizeindividualsfromthecriticismofotherprivateindividuals.Evenifmembersofthe
CommitteeorExxonMobilweretofindthethingssaidaboutthemtobeverymeanspirited,this
wouldstillnotconstituteadeprivationofConstitutionalliberty.Further,manyofthethe
Committeeslettersfocusoncommentsthatthecivilsocietygroupsmadeabouthowtheywould
liketoraisepubliccriticismorscrutinyofExxonMobilormakethemanissueintheupcoming
elections.NotnotonlyissuchspeechnotadeprivationofExxonMobilsFirstAmendment
rights,theyareexactlythetypeofpoliticalspeechtheFirstAmendmentwasdesignedto
protect.

InyourattempttodefendtheFirstAmendmentrightsofExxonMobil,basedona
misunderstandingofboththefactsathandandtheFirstAmendment,youengagedinconduct

thatisitselfchillingofspeech.Yourlettergoestogreatlengthstodocumentgatheringsand
statementsbycivilsocietygroupsthatareprotectedbytheFirstAmendment.Whilesuch
actionsmaynotbeunconstitutionalperse,foragovernmentbodytogatherinformationon
politicalgatheringsandpoliticalspeechandthensendalettertothosewhoengagedinsaid
speechaboutitcouldbeperceivedasharassmentandanattempttochillspeech.

Finally,yourlettersexpressgreatumbragethatgroupsandindividualsconcernedwiththe
environmentmayusethelegalsystemtorevealinternaldocumentsthroughsuchprocessesas
discoveryduringaciviltrialorsubpoenasaspartofcriminalinvestigation.Yet,theentirepoint
ofyourletteristorequestinternalcommunicationsbetweencivilsocietygroups,aswellas
betweencivilsocietygroupsandpublicofficialsaboutpotentialinvestigationsandprosecutions.
TheFirstAmendmentguaranteestherightoffreespeechandthuscivilsocietygroupsare
allowedtocommunicatewitheachothertheirthoughtsorfeelingsonthefossilfuelsindustry.
TheFirstAmendmentalsoincludestherighttopetitionthegovernmentforaredressof
grievances.Thiswouldincludecivilsocietygroupssharinginformationwithpublicofficialsabout
potentialwrongdoingonthebehalfofcorporations.

BORDC/DDFwasinitiallyformedtocombattheHouseUnamericanActivitiesCommittee.
HUACsshamefulconductofcallingindividualstotestifyabouttheirpersonalpoliticalbeliefs
andassociations,aswellastheirdemandingthatcivilsocietygroupsturnoverinformation
abouttheirmembershipandpoliticalactivities,castachilloverfreespeechthatwasfeltwidely
inthiscountry.HUACsgoalwasintimidateindividualsintosilence,andpunishthosewho
continuedtousetheirFirstAmendmentrights.TheconductdemonstratedbythisCommittees
letterstocivilsocietygroupshasfarmoreincommonwithHUACthanwhatonewouldexpect
fromacommitteeonscience,space,andtechnology.

IfthemembersofthiscommitteearestillconfusedabouttheFirstAmendmentafterreadingthis
letterorwouldjustliketolearnmoreabouttheBIllofRights,BORDC/DDFishappytoprovide
themwithConstitutionalliteracytrainingand/orahistoryofHUAC.Pleasecontactmeat
chip@defendingdissent.org
or2025294225toscheduleatraining,orwithanyquestions.

Sincerely,

ChipGibbons
LegalFellow

Cc:
TheHonorableEddieBerniceJohnson,RankingMember,CommitteeonScience,
Space,andTechnology