[Black Wolf]

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.

[NGTM-1R]

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.

[666maslo666]

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.

[Nakura]

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.

[The E]

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...

[FreeSpaceFreak]

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.

[jr2]

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.

[Grizzly]

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.

[666maslo666]

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.. 

[Goober5000]

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.

[redsniper]

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...

[Luis Dias]

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.

[MP-Ryan]

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).

[SypheDMar]

All this talk of how much better Australia and Canada are against stupid makes me wish our Congress did the same thing.

[NGTM-1R]

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.

[Kolgena]

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.

[karajorma]

What I don't get is why anyone making money from anti-vax isn't prosecuted for fraud.

[BrotherBryon]

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.

[Veers]

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.

[MP-Ryan]

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.