Judge Rules “An Inconvenient Truth” One-Sided, Political

A British judge ruled yesterday that An Inconvenient Truth, Al Gore’s documentary on climate change, was a “political film” and required that teachers showing the film in the classroom provide a “balance sheet” to counter Mr. Gore’s “one-sided” film. Although the Court found that the documentary was substantially based on scientific fact, its exaggerated, alarmist message distorted these facts and made claims that have been disputed by luminaries in the scientific community.

While my initial response favored this decision, it raises important questions for libertarians:

1. What right does a judge have to determine what can and can not be taught in schools?

2. Gore’s film is the third highest-grossing documentary of all-time. In privatized schools, with curricula more or less free from government regulation, would it be fair to assume that the documentary may be presented as fact? Would privatized schools lead to a sort of marketplace for truth?

In the midst of the debate over global warming’s scientific status, we find buried in the judge’s statement what I found to be the most absurd claim of the Court in the decision:

It [Gore's film] is built around the charismatic presence of the ex-Vice-President, Al Gore, whose crusade it now is to persuade the world of the dangers of climate change caused by global warming.

When the hell did Al Gore become “charismatic”???

Tags: al gore, an inconvenient truth, britain, environment, judge, politics