Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Black Wolf on June 25, 2013, 03:51:25 am
-
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-06-25/senate-passes-motion-urging-aust-vaccination-network-to-disband/4779882
Bloody good if you ask me. I'm not sure what power it has, especially since it wont pass the lower house before parliament rises in preparation for the election, but at least it passed the senate. That suggests at least one of the major parties supported it (I can't find the exact details of the vote, so it could well have been both), so it might be legislated next year.
Any moves to get rid of this mob are good moves. :nod:
-
I'm not sure what power it has
None. It's a show motion. It "calls upon" rather than having any actual power. It wouldn't matter if you did have a right to free speech.
-
Seems like it has little power, its just a statement. As someone in the medical field I have special aversion against anti vaccination nutjobs, its good to see some official condemnation. When it comes to issues of free speech, I think they should have a right to peddle their nonsense, tough.
-
Because stifling free speech is the hallmark of a free and open society, like Australia.
Australia lost it's mind a long time ago. It's pretty sad to see that there are people who continue to support such blatant authoritarianism.
-
Because stifling free speech is the hallmark of a free and open society, like Australia.
Which free speech is being stifled? The freedom of scaremongers to spread idiocy and lies about vaccinations? Sorry, but I can't quite bring myself to empathize with morons like that.
Australia lost it's mind a long time ago. It's pretty sad to see that there are people who continue to support such blatant authoritarianism.
You got some facts to back that up? Seems to me like Australia is much more sane than other english-speaking countries; at least they're not trying to stifle free speech and expression worldwide like the US...
-
Because stifling free speech is the hallmark of a free and open society, like Australia.
One could argue that some human rights are more fundamental than free speech, and hence should take precedence.
These guys appear to be endangering human lives by their free speech - a case where words can kill indeed. I say they deserve to be silenced.
-
Ah, sort of like hollering Fire in a theater. However, the difference is that in this case, there is no urgency, people can readily access differing views that disprove the false one being put forth. So why does the falsehood need to be outlawed? Perhaps if they were advertising it or something, then maybe outlaw that (truth in advertising).
IDK. It's just, the fear is, after outlawing something like this, then we outlaw hate speech, then we outlaw speech that might offend certain people, then we outlaw speech that disagrees with the official position on {subject}, then we have the beginning of a totalitarian state.
EDIT: ZOMGWTFBBQ, it does NOT matter if someone deserves to be silenced, the law must be impartial to these things.
-
Aside from the anti vaccination lobby using blatant lies and all that jazz, I never really got why autism is somehow worse then all the deadly and/or crippling diseases the vaccines protect against.
So why does the falsehood need to be outlawed?
There is no outlawing going on here. This is simply a "please shut up" note from the government, which does not have to be followed.
The net effect is that the media coverage surrounding this issue will probably inform ignorant people on this issue.
-
If you want to protect lives, then make vaccinations mandatory for kids. But stiffling free speech is never the answer, nor does this legislation do it actually.
Anyway, I am surprised about the callous attitude some display here when it comes to free speech. Outlawing opinions you disagree with is really an assholish thing to do and what gives you the right anyway? Treating other people like they are little kids you can order around? Nah, never understood this mindset at all.. :no:
-
It wouldn't matter if you did have a right to free speech.
Australians have a right to free speech whether or not the government recognizes it.
-
However, the difference is that in this case, there is no urgency, people can readily access differing views that disprove the false one being put forth.
But they probably won't, and while it's unwise to just take people's word without doing your own research, I don't think people deserve to die from easily preventable diseases for their idiocy. We should really just educate people better so they don't fall for this **** in the first place...
-
It wouldn't matter if you did have a right to free speech.
Australians have a right to free speech whether or not the government recognizes it.
If the government creates rules to limit speech, then no you do not have free speech. To me, at least and I think to everyone I know, "free speech" amounts to being able to say what we want without the law hammering down on us. If the law is against free speech, then it's no longer free speech, but just business-as-usual legislated and controlled speech. As it really is in pretty much every country.
-
I find it mildly amusing that anyone here actually thinks "free speech" exists anywhere. Even in places with Constitutional protection of free speech - United States, Canada, virtually any Common Law country where its implied (*coughAustraliacough*) - there are limits on freedom of speech for a variety of reasons - public safety being the primary one. Various jurisdictions take that to different lengths. While yelling "fire!" in a crowded venue is the most oft-cited limit and is just as likely to get you prosecuted in most Common Law countries (which include the US, Canada, etc), some of those countries also have more stringent limits on hate speech - while Westboro operates openly in the US, their members can be denied entry to Canada because some of their actions cross the line of hate speech under Canadian law and they are therefore prohibited from entering Canada.
So - unbridled free speech does not exist in any country.
Now, to the matter at hand - as this is not a legal ban on these organizations but rather a political statement that they should pack up and go home, I have no problem with it. Frankly, I think the anti-vax crowd needs to be publicly slammed, humiliated, discouraged, and challenged as often as possible. I see nothing wrong with what the Australian Senate has done. It's somewhat ironic that a few of you Americans do, since the US is one of the most prominent countries in denying children access to public schooling in certain jurisdictions if they cannot show proof of vaccination (for the record, an approach I wholeheartedly agree with).
-
All this talk of how much better Australia and Canada are against stupid makes me wish our Congress did the same thing.
-
Australians have a right to free speech whether or not the government recognizes it.
Whether that's true or not, it's still irrelevant. This is not a restriction on speech.
-
I thought in parts of Europe and Australia, it was possible to send parents to jail for child endangerment if they don't allow their kids to get vaccines.
-
What I don't get is why anyone making money from anti-vax isn't prosecuted for fraud.
-
Sadly my sister and her husband have fallen in with the anti-vax crowd, it isn't all that surprising though as they have gravitated towards the tea party and militia movements over the last couple of years. I agree with Kara on this one, why those who spew dangerous disinformation for profit aren't prosecuted is beyond me. Freedom of speech is one thing, blatantly misleading the public to follow dangerous unproven fears is another. There is a reason why diseases once almost completely wiped out are starting to see a resurgence.
-
I'm more towards less medications were possible, simply because we have been supplementing ourselves with so much clean and so little germs that we are probably hurting our immune systems in the long run.
Does that mean no vaccines, nup. More focused towards less paracetamol and such. These every day meds that we always run around with the moment we have a slight ache or pain.
As for Free Speech, it seems rather similar here to what I see else where in the world. If I speak out against a certain topic, I'm bad but if that group speaks out against me. It is perfectly ok because going against them is racist or etcetc.
Not always the case, but very fine lines no matter how you look at it.
-
I'm more towards less medications were possible, simply because we have been supplementing ourselves with so much clean and so little germs that we are probably hurting our immune systems in the long run.
...and then you study the immune system and go "Nope!" =)
The immune system doesn't work on the principle that it requires constant exposure to antigens and consistently elevated immune responses to preserve its effectiveness. Cold and flu medications have little effect on the immune system as a whole (but the suppression of symptoms is a bloody welcome relief I'm more than happy to take... bring on the NyQuil!).
Anyway, I often hear this tune from people unfamiliar with immunology and molecular biology, and I'm happy to inform you that your immune system is not negatively affect and may in fact be quite happy to do its job better with full vaccination and some use of various other medications (FYI - regarding aches and pains, these aren't typically managed by the immune system anyway). It's all well and good if people don't want to take 'convenience' medications, but they aren't preserving their overall health in doing so. So please - go get your flu shots, stay home from work when you're sick, wash your bloody hands (anti-microbial soap is fine, so is regular soap), do not take antibiotics for viral infections, and for the love of Pete go get antibiotics if you have things like strep throat and pinkeye before you spread it and TAKE THE FULL COURSE, DON'T STOP WHEN YOU FEEL BETTER.
-
I find it mildly amusing that anyone here actually thinks "free speech" exists anywhere.
I think thats kind of a strawman. When people say free speech, they rarely mean absolute free speech, no exceptions allowed. Only that the exceptions should be very limited.
-
...and then you study the immune system and go "Nope!" =)
There are quite a few theories linking immune diseases like MS and the increase in allergies in the western world with the lack of exposure to antigens. No idea if they're correct or not but it's not like the suggestion that we might be too clean in the west is completely lacking a scientific basis.
-
...and then you study the immune system and go "Nope!" =)
There are quite a few theories linking immune diseases like MS and the increase in allergies in the western world with the lack of exposure to antigens. No idea if they're correct or not but it's not like the suggestion that we might be too clean in the west is completely lacking a scientific basis.
Our prolific use of anti-biotics may be more of cause for that then anything else.
-
Vaccinations, though, are just controlled exposure to antigens; so they are emphatically not to blame.
-
...and then you study the immune system and go "Nope!" =)
There are quite a few theories linking immune diseases like MS and the increase in allergies in the western world with the lack of exposure to antigens. No idea if they're correct or not but it's not like the suggestion that we might be too clean in the west is completely lacking a scientific basis.
I'm not familiar with any actual theories along those lines - though it's a narrative that gets a lot of play in the media and outside the actual scientific community. More commonly, MS is thought to be an auto-immune disease, and allergies are essentially an auto-immune disease. Auto-immune diseases are not well understood in general, but the use of medications to treat disease symptoms (by far the majority of medications do not actually treat disease; antibiotics and the rare use of anti-virals are exceptions) is extraordinarily unlikely to lead to auto-immune dysfunction, and vaccination if anything should help prevent it. If anything, auto-immunity seems to be strongly linked to environmental exposure to antigen-analogues and suppression (through chemical and hormone exposures) of one of the T and B cell negative selection paths that prevents production of T cells that attack our own bodies.
The main problem the obsession with cleanliness and antimicrobials creates is resistant microorganisms - things which our immune system has to deal with in the end because drugs don't.
-
I agree with Kara on this one, why those who spew dangerous disinformation for profit aren't prosecuted is beyond me. Freedom of speech is one thing, blatantly misleading the public to follow dangerous unproven fears is another.
The free and open exchange of ideas is one of the hallmarks of a free society. If you disapprove of what somebody else is saying, why are you not content with mounting a superior counter-argument? Why do you advocate punishing them for badthink?
This is a far cry from the "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" of classical liberalism.
-
This is a far cry from the "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" of classical liberalism.
Perhaps it is, but even classic liberalism recognized the need to limit free speech when it threatens other people's lives (Fire in a theatre etc.). The anti vaccination crowd are beyond questioning threatening lives.
-
You're skipping a few steps. There is indeed a circumstance when it is not justifiable to limit people yelling fire in a theater. When is it?
-
When someone attempts to sell you a bridge they don't own, would you say they are also allowed to do it cause of free speech and you just need to mount an anti-he-doesn't-own-the-bridge campaign?
Look at Andrew Wakefield, why wasn't that **** prosecuted for fraud? He was obviously going to make large sums of money if people believed him.
How is that really different from conning people with a pyramid scheme?
-
The main problem the obsession with cleanliness and antimicrobials creates is resistant microorganisms - things which our immune system has to deal with in the end because drugs don't.
I was actually referring to this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hygiene_hypothesis). While I agree that medicine in and of itself isn't going to have an effect on health, it is possible that a lack of exposure to pathogens is having one.
-
The free and open exchange of ideas is one of the hallmarks of a free society. If you disapprove of what somebody else is saying, why are you not content with mounting a superior counter-argument? Why do you advocate punishing them for badthink?
So you're completely fine with people spreading harmful disinformation?
Sure, total free speech is a nice ideal, but when it comes to speech that is factually untrue and is actively harming people's health, I have no problem with seeing it limited.
But then I am a socialist authoritarian by american standards.
-
But then I am a socialist authoritarian by american standards.
Anti-vaccination rhetoric is legal pretty much everywhere. If you want to limit it, then you are an authoritarian by a lot more standards than only American ones.
When it is legal to not vaccinate your kids, then dont call for legal action when someone advocates just that. It is their right, whether we like it or not.
When someone attempts to sell you a bridge they don't own, would you say they are also allowed to do it cause of free speech and you just need to mount an anti-he-doesn't-own-the-bridge campaign?
They are allowed to do it if you let them. So if the victim does not press charges, it is legal. Regarding comparisons with fraud, thats not what anti-vaccination people usualy do, simply lying and even selling lies is legal and not the same thing as fraud (you still get what you pay for). And there is the issue of mens rea, which many antivaxxers arguably dont have, because they are too stupid.. :)
-
...
-
Look, I'm from Germany. We've got laws on the books limiting free speech in quite a lot of places, and yet, our democracy works just about as well as any other.
There's also the minor issue that there's nothing equivalent to the US or Oz Antivax movement here, because we're raised to trust scientists. So yeah, if someone were to try to start a big campaign against vaccinations, I would expect and demand that the state would intervene, up to and including criminal sanctions against those responsible.
-
Even comparing this to fraud seems inaccurate. This seems more analogous to people who lie about their HIV infection to potential partners, in that bodily harm can result.
-
While I do understand where The_E is coming from, I'll just post this remarkable speech by Hitchens. It's hilarious how he starts it, take notice where this "fire!" in a theatre came from as an argument against "total" Free Speech....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyoOfRog1EM
-
Even comparing this to fraud seems inaccurate. This seems more analogous to people who lie about their HIV infection to potential partners, in that bodily harm can result.
Not really, you can lie all you want about HIV infection as long as you dont actually have sex with someone or otherwise endanger people by more than words. In the same way anti-vaccination nutjobs can spread their ideology if they dont do anything else.
I think a good analogy is those Jehova witnesses who espouse that blood transfusions are sin, then there are those who are against chemotherapy for cancer, and similar cults and ideologies are plentiful. They can do that, because if an adult of sound mind decides to accept it and so brings harm upon himself, it is ultimately his responsibility.
-
Not really, you can lie all you want about HIV infection as long as you dont actually have sex with someone or otherwise endanger people by more than words. In the same way anti-vaccination nutjobs can spread their ideology if they dont do anything else.
Umm
You do know that part of that ideology is "do not give your kids vaccinations", which directly leads to something called "weakened herd immunity", which leads to something called "more sick people", right? If the refusal to vaccinate would only harm the person not being vaccinated, I wouldn't be so adamant about punishing these people. They are implicitly endangering everyone around them though, and so other standards have to be applied.
I think a good analogy is those Jehova witnesses who espouse that blood transfusions are sin, then there are those who are against chemotherapy for cancer, and similar cults and ideologies are plentiful. They can do that, because if an adult of sound mind decides to accept it and so brings harm upon himself, it is ultimately his responsibility.
Yes, but the difference is that the only person they're hurting is themselves. An adult can do many things. However, as soon as his or her actions harm others, society needs to step in and stop it, imho.
-
Nonono, the difference is that the Jehova's Witnesses argue against blood transfusions on a moral and spiritual basis; they aren't making any factual claims. Antivaxxers, though, are (knowingly or otherwise) making empirically false claims about the dangers of vaccination. I don't think I'd want someone who said vaccines eat your soul to be prosecuted, for instance.
-
Not really, you can lie all you want about HIV infection as long as you dont actually have sex with someone or otherwise endanger people by more than words.
Which I wasn't making a reference to. See also The E's commentary/Phantom Hoover's commentary.
The other issue is that this is by default not a matter of self-decision as most of the people involved are not deciding for themselves, but for others. Their children, specifically.
-
You do know that part of that ideology is "do not give your kids vaccinations", which directly leads to something called "weakened herd immunity", which leads to something called "more sick people", right? If the refusal to vaccinate would only harm the person not being vaccinated, I wouldn't be so adamant about punishing these people. They are implicitly endangering everyone around them though, and so other standards have to be applied.
Then make those vaccinations for kids mandatory, but as long as parents officialy have right to choose, this point is really moot. It is standard practice in many countries already to have mandatory vaccinations for kids. Legally and morally, the responsibility lies with the parents who endanger their kids and others. Not with anti-vaccination advocates.
And this holds true for other kinds of nutjobs, too. Free speech restrictions are not the answer.
-
OTOH, this idea that the government can decide for you what is best for your children is also a dangerous idea.
Not that I prefer the idea that the parents always know better, etc. What I am saying is that we are always in a dangerous setting here, there's no safe haven. On one side, libertarianism points to abhorrent social darwinism (let the kids of stupid parents suffer, the gene pool thanks them), while the other points to totalitarianism. I don't think these answers will ever be decided in a simple, peaceful manner. This tension will always exist and we should just accept it.
-
You do know that part of that ideology is "do not give your kids vaccinations", which directly leads to something called "weakened herd immunity", which leads to something called "more sick people", right? If the refusal to vaccinate would only harm the person not being vaccinated, I wouldn't be so adamant about punishing these people. They are implicitly endangering everyone around them though, and so other standards have to be applied.
Then make those vaccinations for kids mandatory, but as long as parents officialy have right to choose, this point is really moot. It is standard practice in many countries already to have mandatory vaccinations for kids. Legally and morally, the responsibility lies with the parents who endanger their kids and others. Not with anti-vaccination advocates.
And this holds true for other kinds of nutjobs, too. Free speech restrictions are not the answer.
Are you a Bajoran wormhole alien? Because your reasoning lacks a certain... linearity.
-
The other issue is that this is by default not a matter of self-decision as most of the people involved are not deciding for themselves, but for others. Their children, specifically.
Just to return to this, I think it is a very good argument and I agree. Then why are our conclusion different? Because I apply it to legal matters, too. You cannot ban speech because thats a personal right and a matter of self-decision, among other things. But you can regulate what parents can or cannot do to their kids because someone else has to decide for them anyway, we ought to protect them, there is a much stronger precedent to do so, and you act closer to the real issue so you dont punish plenty of innocent people for potential but not actual harm and stuff.
Nonono, the difference is that the Jehova's Witnesses argue against blood transfusions on a moral and spiritual basis; they aren't making any factual claims. Antivaxxers, though, are (knowingly or otherwise) making empirically false claims about the dangers of vaccination. I don't think I'd want someone who said vaccines eat your soul to be prosecuted, for instance.
Why woudnt you, if the consequences are the same? It should not really matter on what basis are they arguing. And I am sure there are plenty of anti-medicine cranks who do argue using bad science, even among Jehova witnesses.
-
You cannot ban speech because thats a personal right and a matter of self-decision, among other things.
Certain types of speech that encourage people to harm children have been banned in the past on the grounds they add nothing to the national discourse, save for their harmful content. (Abortion information.) Some of them remained banned. (Pornography involving minors.)
As what the anti-vaccination crowd are saying is factually untrue, it demonstrably adds nothing to the national discourse. It is at best white noise and at worst intentional interference. It is also speech that is harmful to children. It thus falls under the loose historical precedents for such action.
-
It is standard practice in many countries already to have mandatory vaccinations for kids.
No, it's not. The closest thing to mandatory vaccination in the G8 is policy in some individual US states that refuses kids without records of vaccination to public schools. There isn't a democracy on the planet in which every parent is forced to vaccinate their kids (unfortunately).
The trouble with your reasoning is this:
Anti-vax nutjobs rely on fear and the pervasive spreading of empirically-false information to advance their agenda. There isn't a legitimate piece of scientific evidence that supports their claims. But the unfortunate part is that it doesn't hurt them - mopst anti-vax parents actually have their vaccinations because their parents weren't idiots. It hurts their kids. The courts have upheld that free speech rights - such as those of Jehova's Witnesses concerning blood transfusions - can be legally suppressed when a child below the age of majority is put at risk because of the parents' belief system and ignorance of / refusal to acknowledge empirically-sound scientific evidence. The anti-vax crowd occupies the same political space. It is one thing to say "I don't believe in vaccination because I think it causes autism / is just a money grab by big pharma / whatever crazy conspiracy bull**** they come up with today." It is quite another to say "You shouldn't vaccinate your kids because it causes <above> and here is all the scientific evidence," then proceed to lay out links to conspiracy information that they misrepresent as science which some people are just stupid enough to fall for. That's where I draw the line - the former should be protected speech. The later should be criminally prosecuted because of its impact on public health.
And if you don't believe there's an impact on public health, I won't spoil it for you, but look up Japan's history with whooping cough vaccination in the 1970s - what happened before the vaccine scare and spread of false information, and what happened after. Make particular note of infant mortality rates.
-
Well, to be fair, you'd be a total hypocrite if you believed that "it causes autism / is just a money grab by big pharma / whatever crazy conspiracy bull**** they come up with today", and then would not spread the word that "You shouldn't vaccinate your kids because it causes <above> and here is all the scientific evidence"... because said pseudo-science is precisely what drove these people reaching anti-vax conclusions.
I also cringe whenever someone proposes legalizing against being a science denier or something similar. Not saying you haven't a case here, but watch out for the establishment of a very very dangerous precedent.
-
No, it's not. The closest thing to mandatory vaccination in the G8 is policy in some individual US states that refuses kids without records of vaccination to public schools. There isn't a democracy on the planet in which every parent is forced to vaccinate their kids (unfortunately).
You are wrong here.
http://www.eurosurveillance.org/ViewArticle.aspx?ArticleId=20183
Compulsory vaccinations for children is standard practice in many countries. I know for a fact it is here in Slovakia, at least.
The courts have upheld that free speech rights - such as those of Jehova's Witnesses concerning blood transfusions - can be legally suppressed when a child below the age of majority is put at risk because of the parents' belief system and ignorance of / refusal to acknowledge empirically-sound scientific evidence.
Source, please.
I dont doubt anti-vaccination scaremongering can have some impact on public health. But that does not justify freedom of speech restrictions. It may justify compulsory vaccinations, at best, in fact that would be a lot more effective solution.
If we banned every kind of speech that can potentialy have negative impact on public, then that is one huge slippery slope and a huge intrusion into private matters of the people.
-
You are wrong here.
http://www.eurosurveillance.org/ViewArticle.aspx?ArticleId=20183
Compulsory vaccinations for children is standard practice in many countries. I know for a fact it is here in Slovakia, at least.
The word mandatory/compulsory is misleading in this context. Parents do not face criminal sanctions for refusal to vaccinate their kids. Even in places like Slovakia where the could face fines the courts are ruling against mandatory vaccination. This piece (http://www.thedaily.sk/compulsory-child-vaccinations-ruled-unconstitutional/) is timely.
The courts have upheld that free speech rights - such as those of Jehova's Witnesses concerning blood transfusions - can be legally suppressed when a child below the age of majority is put at risk because of the parents' belief system and ignorance of / refusal to acknowledge empirically-sound scientific evidence.
Source, please.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2009/06/26/supreme-blood026.html
There are similar cases in the US.
[I dont doubt anti-vaccination scaremongering can have some impact on public health. But that does not justify freedom of speech restrictions. It may justify compulsory vaccinations, at best, in fact that would be a lot more effective solution.
If we banned every kind of speech that can potentialy have negative impact on public, then that is one huge slippery slope and a huge intrusion into private matters of the people.
Like someone else said, your consistency is a little off. So it's not OK to prosecute people for false claims which should really not be protected as free speech, but it's perfectly fine to force people to vaccinate their kids? The former restricts people from spread false information that poses a severe risk to public health. The latter forces people to inject substances into their bodies without their consent. I'm all for making vaccination essentially mandatory through incentives (like no public education without it, reduced health coverage, etc etc), but I draw the line at criminal sanctions for refusing.
Also, slippery slope arguments are worthless and intellectually lazy.
-
The courts have upheld that free speech rights - such as those of Jehova's Witnesses concerning blood transfusions - can be legally suppressed when a child below the age of majority is put at risk because of the parents' belief system and ignorance of / refusal to acknowledge empirically-sound scientific evidence.
Source, please.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2009/06/26/supreme-blood026.html
There are similar cases in the US.
This has nothing to do with suppression of free speech.
-
It has everything to do with what was asked for the source about. That goalpost is staying right where it is.
-
It has everything to do with what was asked for the source about. That goalpost is staying right where it is.
Indeed, and under Canadian Constitutional law, rights of free speech, freedom of association, freedom of religion, etc are all captured under the same section (s.2) of the Charter, so that case has everything to do with free speech and its suppression in favour of medical treatment.
-
Even comparing this to fraud seems inaccurate. This seems more analogous to people who lie about their HIV infection to potential partners, in that bodily harm can result.
While I agree with you in part, Andrew Wakefield for instance should have been prosecuted for fraud. He received money from a company for proving that there was a link between autism and MMR vaccines. He stood to make more money whenever he was called as an expert witness. But everything he said about the link was a lie. A lie designed to make him money.
I don't see how that isn't either fraud or an attempt to pervert the course of justice.
And I don't think he's the only anti-vaxer to publish lies in order to sell something.
-
And I don't think he's the only anti-vaxer to publish lies in order to sell something.
Relevant link is relevant:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-06-21/anti-vaccination-group-fails-to-stop-black-salve-advertising/4772876
-
I don't see how that isn't either fraud or an attempt to pervert the course of justice.
It's fraud in that case, but it's also probably something else because of the possibility of doing physical harm. (Malpractice? It could probably fit under some states' definitions of assault, but there's no accounting for that...)
You could make a really good Law & Order episode out of this and McCoy charging someone with depraved indifference homicide, but I don't think that's reasonable for reality.
-
I don't really care which charge they hit people like him with as long as it sticks. I agree that you probably could add some sort of public endangerment charge as well as the fraud one. It's just that I think that fraud would probably be the easiest one to prosecute him for. It's obvious he lied for money
As this thread shows, too many people would by a free speech argument to make it as easy.
-
The word mandatory/compulsory is misleading in this context. Parents do not face criminal sanctions for refusal to vaccinate their kids. Even in places like Slovakia where the could face fines the courts are ruling against mandatory vaccination. This piece (http://www.thedaily.sk/compulsory-child-vaccinations-ruled-unconstitutional/) is timely.
Compulsory does not neccessarily mean it has to be a crime. It is still compulsory even with a fine and such. I am sure even a fine is going to ensure high enough compliance to achieve herd immunity. There arent that many anti-vaxxers who are determined enough to refuse still. I read somewhere that most common cause for not vaccinating is actually lack of awareness or lazyness.
If refusal to vaccinate does cause widespread issues, then punishments should be tougher, I dont have a problem with that.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2009/06/26/supreme-blood026.html
There are similar cases in the US.
Thats not about free speech.
Like someone else said, your consistency is a little off. So it's not OK to prosecute people for false claims which should really not be protected as free speech, but it's perfectly fine to force people to vaccinate their kids?
Yes, of course! Free speech rights are one of the most basic, personal and important, certainly more than right to decide what to do about OTHER UNCONSENTING PEOPLES bodies. So how is this inconsistent? Most countries on the planet will force parents or child to comply if the health of the child is endagered, and for a good reason, it is basically child abuse to not do so. But to ban speech that may be potentialy dangerous for society, like anti-vaxxers? That would not fly mostly anywhere, is a huge ad-hoc precedent, and is a big intrusion into private matters of people that dont even necessarily affect third persons directly.
You are putting a cart before the horse in a big way. First we need to ban something, then there is nothing for a long long ... long stretch, and then if the matter is serious enough we may talk about free speech restrictions. Your position is like legalising child molestation yet keeping a ban on child porn (****ety analogy but you get my drift, there arent that many justified free speech restrictions that I can use).
-
Indeed, and under Canadian Constitutional law, rights of free speech, freedom of association, freedom of religion, etc are all captured under the same section (s.2) of the Charter, so that case has everything to do with free speech and its suppression in favour of medical treatment.
It does not matter what section are they under.
Forcing a child to get a transfusion is not an issue of free speech. Not like understood by everyone else, at least, and not like what we talk about here. The question of whether a child can decide about their own body and from what age is an interesting one, but free speech or expression issue it is certainly not.
-
So I think this discussion is fundamentally going nowhere, and I think that's because maslo is working under the assumption that absolutely unrestricted free speech is an unquestionable human right that comes before all other considerations. I don't agree, and I suspect the same is true of most of the other people disagreeing with him.
-
So I think this discussion is fundamentally going nowhere, and I think that's because maslo is working under the assumption that absolutely unrestricted free speech is an unquestionable human right that comes before all other considerations. I don't agree, and I suspect the same is true of most of the other people disagreeing with him.
Huh? I have written before that I dont think absolute free speech is a good idea, so thats not what my assumption is. I just dont think free speech is so unimportant that we can ban any speech we disagree with at the first sign of potential trouble.
-
that is not what anyone else is suggesting here and you know it
-
Huh? I have written before that I dont think absolute free speech is a good idea, so thats not what my assumption is. I just dont think free speech is so unimportant that we can ban any speech we disagree with at the first sign of potential trouble.
Well, see, the thing is, this ain't "potential" trouble we're talking about. People died because of this movement. Diseases we thought dead and buried have resurfaced because of them. That is very real, very troubling trouble.
-
Compulsory does not neccessarily mean it has to be a crime.
Actually, it does. If there is not a meaningful, consistently-applied punishment to all people who refuse to do something compulsory, it isn't actually compulsory. That's how laws work, I'm afraid. Hence, vaccination is not compulsory in any democracy.
Thats not about free speech.
---
It does not matter what section are they under.
Forcing a child to get a transfusion is not an issue of free speech. Not like understood by everyone else, at least, and not like what we talk about here. The question of whether a child can decide about their own body and from what age is an interesting one, but free speech or expression issue it is certainly not.
Actually, it is. The case was argued on freedom of expression and belief, which is Canada's version of protection of freedom of speech. Again, consult the actual law. You may not think it is about free speech, but the nine justices of the Supreme Court of Canada who granted the leave to appeal from the lower courts all apparently disagreed with you. No offense, but their opinion matters a little more on legal matters than yours does.
Yes, of course! Free speech rights are one of the most basic, personal and important, certainly more than right to decide what to do about OTHER UNCONSENTING PEOPLES bodies. So how is this inconsistent? Most countries on the planet will force parents or child to comply if the health of the child is endagered, and for a good reason, it is basically child abuse to not do so. But to ban speech that may be potentialy dangerous for society, like anti-vaxxers? That would not fly mostly anywhere, is a huge ad-hoc precedent, and is a big intrusion into private matters of people that dont even necessarily affect third persons directly.
You are putting a cart before the horse in a big way. First we need to ban something, then there is nothing for a long long ... long stretch, and then if the matter is serious enough we may talk about free speech restrictions. Your position is like legalising child molestation yet keeping a ban on child porn (****ety analogy but you get my drift, there arent that many justified free speech restrictions that I can use).
This is just non-nonsensical, particularly the analogy.
-
Well, see, the thing is, this ain't "potential" trouble we're talking about. People died because of this movement. Diseases we thought dead and buried have resurfaced because of them. That is very real, very troubling trouble.
Well, no. Diseases have resurfaced because they have adapted to the vaccines used against them. If they hadn't, then there would be no need to develop new vaccines.
To respond to my previous post (http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=84901.msg1696282#msg1696282), there is a situation when you can yell fire in a theater, and that is when you legitimately believe there is a fire in the theater. Those in the anti-vaccination movement apparently have legitimate cause to believe what they're saying.
And keep in mind vaccination is not a binary either/or position. To cite a variation on the pro/anti spectrum that is still firmly in the "pro" area, doctors on the European continent think American vaccinations happen too early and too quickly, and they have a more relaxed vaccination pace.
-
Well, no. Diseases have resurfaced because they have adapted to the vaccines used against them. If they hadn't, then there would be no need to develop new vaccines.
Diseases can also resurface because vaccination frequencies fall below the threshold for herd immunity; witness the recent measles epidemic in Swansea.
-
To respond to my previous post (http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=84901.msg1696282#msg1696282), there is a situation when you can yell fire in a theater, and that is when you legitimately believe there is a fire in the theater. Those in the anti-vaccination movement apparently have legitimate cause to believe what they're saying.
But the problem is that no matter how many studies there are that disprove this notion, the antivax movement will roll on and on, moving goalposts and such to keep on claiming that vaccinations do more harm then good.
Ultimately, what we have here is people who are making money by scaring the vulnerable into buying into their rhetoric. I would prefer that to be a non-viable business model.
-
I feel that this is actually rather relevant. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i6AJUWFXrBI) [=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9P80I96X4c]And so is this follow up video[/url].
Most of you already know this, but it remains rather informative.
-
Actually, it does. If there is not a meaningful, consistently-applied punishment to all people who refuse to do something compulsory, it isn't actually compulsory. That's how laws work, I'm afraid. Hence, vaccination is not compulsory in any democracy.
Fine is a meaningful punishment, in fact making this a crime is pretty over the top in normal circumstances. Laws work by what is written on paper, and going by that it is compulsory. And why do you think it is not consistently enforced? Try to refuse vaccinating your kid in one of these countries and see what happens.
Even if it wasnt enforced consistently, laws also work by considering the intention behind them, and so in this case they may relax the enforcement (as opposed to law itself) if herd immunity is sufficient, which it is in countries with compulsory vaccination.
So I dont really see how it is not compulsory, you are grasping at straws. It is even called "compulsory vaccination" or "mandatory vaccination"...
Actually, it is. The case was argued on freedom of expression and belief, which is Canada's version of protection of freedom of speech. Again, consult the actual law. You may not think it is about free speech, but the nine justices of the Supreme Court of Canada who granted the leave to appeal from the lower courts all apparently disagreed with you. No offense, but their opinion matters a little more on legal matters than yours does.
Thinking about it, this does not actually matter for my argument. This case cannot be justified on free speech grounds, we all agree on that. Whether it is because it is not really an issue of free speech (as I said), or because free speech should not extend this far (your view) is mostly just semantics, and I am not sure which view the court used for its ruling. So if you want to think that giving a dying child a forced transfusion is actually a restriction of speech or expression, as much as I think this view is absurd, I dont care. Maybe in Canada it is, lol
-
So I dont really see how it is not compulsory, you are grasping at straws. It is even called "compulsory vaccination" or "mandatory vaccination"...
And yet it is not actually mandatory. It is still possible to refuse to vaccinate your children in those countries.
This case cannot be justified on free speech grounds, we all agree on that. Whether it is because it is not really an issue of free speech (as I said), or because free speech should not extend this far (your view) is mostly just semantics, and I am not sure which view the court used for its ruling. So if you want to think that giving a dying child a forced transfusion is actually a restriction of speech or expression, as much as I think this view is absurd, I dont care. Maybe in Canada it is, lol
The same precedent exists in the United States. I don't know if it also exists in the EU; I haven't bothered to look. Regardless, the point is that courts - Supreme Courts - have ruled that forced transfusions are a justifiable suppression of the right to freedom of expression (free speech) to preserve life.