[666maslo666]

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.

[karajorma]

...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.

[BrotherBryon]

...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.

[Phantom Hoover]

Vaccinations, though, are just controlled exposure to antigens; so they are emphatically not to blame.

[MP-Ryan]

...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.

[Goober5000]

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.

[Black Wolf]

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.

[Goober5000]

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?

[karajorma]

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?

[karajorma]

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. 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 E]

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.

[666maslo666]

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..

[666maslo666]

...

[The E]

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.

[NGTM-1R]

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.

[Luis Dias]

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

[666maslo666]

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.

[The E]

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.

[Phantom Hoover]

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.

[NGTM-1R]

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.