[Phantom Hoover]

that is not what anyone else is suggesting here and you know it

[The E]

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.

[MP-Ryan]

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.

[Goober5000]

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, 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.

[Phantom Hoover]

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.

[The E]

To respond to my previous post, 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.

[Grizzly]

I feel that this is actually rather relevant. [=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.

[666maslo666]

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

[MP-Ryan]

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.