4 ms·

That's a fair enough point, but I think most would agree that the constitution doesn't always keep up with the times. This leads to our constant interpretation

That's a fair enough point, but I think most would agree that the constitution doesn't always keep up with the times. This leads to our constant interpretation and reinvention of it (see the conflicting decisions of Plessy v. Ferguson and Brown v. Board of Education). I don't think it's perfect, but I would also argue that it's not dangerous, in fact it's necessary. Indeed, laws like trademark and truth in advertising are exactly what you are suggesting could happen. They are laws that protect consumers from potential harm created by false claims. It's not a limitation on political speech, but fact. I don't think anti-vaccination speech being illegal is actually too terribly unreasonable. I guess in my day to day existence I would rather live in a culture where I'm generally protected from potential harms so I can go about my day with less worry. Could those limitations reach a point where I find them unreasonable? Surely they have and surely it has happened in the history of the United States, but I think it's a testament to the culture and its institutions that we've rebalanced when we've gone too far one direction.

AnimalMuppet 10y ago
> I don't think anti-vaccination speech being illegal is actually too terribly unreasonable. That would let you ban publication of a rigorous, well-done study that found actual harm from some vaccinations. That is not a good path to be on.
- stinkytaco 10y ago
  Perhaps I didn't phrase it well. I should say "unsubstantiated and speculative anti-vaccination speech". If you've got a study that is generally accepted by the medical community, that's one thing. Going on Oprah or taking out ads in magazines is another entirely.
  - Sacho 10y ago
    > If you've got a study that is generally accepted by the medical community If you want to get unsubstantiated and speculative anti-vaccination speech outlawed, you need to convince a majority of people to do it. In such a case, it seems likely that the medical community would also contain a majority convinced of the worthlessness of anti-vaccination speech, thus relying on them to substantiate it would be pointless. In general, what you're describing is tyranny of the majority that a constitution is meant to prevent. Even if we had the omniscience to determine that vaccinations are now perfectly safe and give brilliant results, outlawing speech against them makes them a protected category, which is ripe for abuse. The argument will shift from pro/anti vaccination to "this is not a real vaccination", subverting whatever your intention of outlawing the speech was. Meanwhile, the things billed under 'vaccination' will slowly morph as time advances, as people fight to classify more and more medicine under it, to protect their drugs from criticism. This is exactly the thing that happens already under every exception to the First Amendment in the US, and why courts would repeatedly narrow down each exception, refusing to expand it further. Are you prepared to add this to the list of things to be eternally vigilant about? How confident are you that the courts will continue to defend narrow limitations when given an ever-growing list of them? Most importantly, do you think your new law will have any useful effect, given that people are notoriously good at subverting narrowly-crafted censorship, and broad censorship always has unintentional side-effects?
    - stinkytaco 10y ago
      Fairly confident, if only because we already do it, and don't seem to suffer for it. I want to emphasize that I'm not advocating the suppression of research, but of demonstrably false and harmful claims. That is something that exists and is a fairly narrow test. Arguing for healthy people to not receive vaccines definitely falls into this category. It not only harms the people who don't get them it harms the rest of us as well. In fact, I would say the expectation exists that the government will do that. We have come to take for granted that the products we buy are safe and the claims we see are true, precisely because we accept that it's reasonable to expect speech to be limited in this way. Regardless, I don't want to lose the thread. Anti-vaccination is not a commercial enterprise, no one is making false claims and selling them (well, some people are, but not as a product). The example was fair, and I can acknowledge that I may be wrong on that. But I stand by that we can, and should, be allowed to limit speech to prevent harm, just like we limit all sorts of other things for the same reason, including things that are constitutionally protected.

AnimalMuppet 10y ago

> I don't think anti-vaccination speech being illegal is actually too terribly unreasonable. That would let you ban publication of a rigorous, well-done study that found actual harm from some vaccinations. That is not a good path to be on.

stinkytaco 10y ago
Perhaps I didn't phrase it well. I should say "unsubstantiated and speculative anti-vaccination speech". If you've got a study that is generally accepted by the medical community, that's one thing. Going on Oprah or taking out ads in magazines is another entirely.
- Sacho 10y ago
  > If you've got a study that is generally accepted by the medical community If you want to get unsubstantiated and speculative anti-vaccination speech outlawed, you need to convince a majority of people to do it. In such a case, it seems likely that the medical community would also contain a majority convinced of the worthlessness of anti-vaccination speech, thus relying on them to substantiate it would be pointless. In general, what you're describing is tyranny of the majority that a constitution is meant to prevent. Even if we had the omniscience to determine that vaccinations are now perfectly safe and give brilliant results, outlawing speech against them makes them a protected category, which is ripe for abuse. The argument will shift from pro/anti vaccination to "this is not a real vaccination", subverting whatever your intention of outlawing the speech was. Meanwhile, the things billed under 'vaccination' will slowly morph as time advances, as people fight to classify more and more medicine under it, to protect their drugs from criticism. This is exactly the thing that happens already under every exception to the First Amendment in the US, and why courts would repeatedly narrow down each exception, refusing to expand it further. Are you prepared to add this to the list of things to be eternally vigilant about? How confident are you that the courts will continue to defend narrow limitations when given an ever-growing list of them? Most importantly, do you think your new law will have any useful effect, given that people are notoriously good at subverting narrowly-crafted censorship, and broad censorship always has unintentional side-effects?
  - stinkytaco 10y ago
    Fairly confident, if only because we already do it, and don't seem to suffer for it. I want to emphasize that I'm not advocating the suppression of research, but of demonstrably false and harmful claims. That is something that exists and is a fairly narrow test. Arguing for healthy people to not receive vaccines definitely falls into this category. It not only harms the people who don't get them it harms the rest of us as well. In fact, I would say the expectation exists that the government will do that. We have come to take for granted that the products we buy are safe and the claims we see are true, precisely because we accept that it's reasonable to expect speech to be limited in this way. Regardless, I don't want to lose the thread. Anti-vaccination is not a commercial enterprise, no one is making false claims and selling them (well, some people are, but not as a product). The example was fair, and I can acknowledge that I may be wrong on that. But I stand by that we can, and should, be allowed to limit speech to prevent harm, just like we limit all sorts of other things for the same reason, including things that are constitutionally protected.