16 ms·

There's nothing about vaccine-deniers that meets the "clear and present danger" doctrine as established by our courts, especially not enough to nullify the very

There's nothing about vaccine-deniers that meets the "clear and present danger" doctrine as established by our courts, especially not enough to nullify the very first sentence in our bill of rights. At least that's my opinion, which maybe makes me an "absolutist" in your terms. Besides, government censorship is not some esoteric political theory, indeed it's the natural inclination of those in power, and there's a long history of states using it to the detriment of their citizens -- but maybe they just haven't tried "real" censorship?

vkou 7y ago
The bill of rights was written long before germ theory, and the courts have so far proven incapable of understanding the problem of probabilistic risks with the standard of "clear and present danger". And just because something is legal, doesn't make it right. For your second point: there's a long history of states using police to the detriment of their citizens (And, in my opinion, they continue to do so, even to this day), so we should abolish the institution tomorrow. How's that for an esoteric theory? For some reason, though, the courts aren't super keen on that line of reasoning...
- whatshisface 7y ago
  I think that people who invent and promulgate exceptions to freedom of speech are contributing to a very dangerous problem and should be forcefully stopped by the police. I've tried arguing, but they remain unconvinced - leaving force as the only option.
bsder 7y ago
> There's nothing about vaccine-deniers that meets the "clear and present danger" doctrine as established by our courts, especially not enough to nullify the very first sentence in our bill of rights. At least that's my opinion, which maybe makes me an "absolutist" in your terms. Yes, lack of herd immunity causing an outbreak certainly does meet the "clear and present danger". You don't get to build whatever you want precisely because it might harm somebody else--we have building codes. You don't get to skip vaccination precisely because an outbreak WILL harm somebody else.

vkou 7y ago

The bill of rights was written long before germ theory, and the courts have so far proven incapable of understanding the problem of probabilistic risks with the standard of "clear and present danger". And just because something is legal, doesn't make it right. For your second point: there's a long history of states using police to the detriment of their citizens (And, in my opinion, they continue to do so, even to this day), so we should abolish the institution tomorrow. How's that for an esoteric theory? For some reason, though, the courts aren't super keen on that line of reasoning...

whatshisface 7y ago
I think that people who invent and promulgate exceptions to freedom of speech are contributing to a very dangerous problem and should be forcefully stopped by the police. I've tried arguing, but they remain unconvinced - leaving force as the only option.

bsder 7y ago

> There's nothing about vaccine-deniers that meets the "clear and present danger" doctrine as established by our courts, especially not enough to nullify the very first sentence in our bill of rights. At least that's my opinion, which maybe makes me an "absolutist" in your terms. Yes, lack of herd immunity causing an outbreak certainly does meet the "clear and present danger". You don't get to build whatever you want precisely because it might harm somebody else--we have building codes. You don't get to skip vaccination precisely because an outbreak WILL harm somebody else.