5 ms·

When we're considering regulation, it's important to consider the activity we're regulating in context. Here's one extreme: it's legal to light a match. It's no

When we're considering regulation, it's important to consider the activity we're regulating in context. Here's one extreme: it's legal to light a match. It's not legal to light a match and toss it into a gas pump. We shouldn't regulate speech, but you should own the consequences of your actions -- speech included. If you're spreading anti-vax propaganda, you're complicit in killing kids. It's certainly not as bad as pulling the trigger; you're one component of a much greater whole, and any restrictions or punishment should reflect that.

creaghpatr 7y ago
>If you're spreading anti-vax propaganda, you're complicit in killing kids. That is absolutely nuts if you believe that.
- F-0X 7y ago
  Is it? If A says to B, "don't vaccinate your kids", B complies, and then B's child dies of a disease it could have been vaccinated against, you would not say A had any culpability?
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - banads 7y ago
    Depends on if you think people have any free will or ability to think for themselves
    - F-0X 7y ago
      I don't think it does. People share information and learn from each other. Hence, it is important to be responsible when providing information. We frequently see disclaimers on HN, Reddit, etc. like "IANAL", so as to put forward a point of view while warning it shouldn't be taken too seriously as actionable advice. It's the sensible thing to do. Anybody spreading anti-vaccination propaganda has been convinced of it themselves.
      - banads 7y ago
        Assuming any random stranger on the internet is a licensed lawyer is stupid. Blaming other people for your own stupidity is a great way to avoid the responsibility of thinking for yourself. If we want adults to act like adults, we shouldn't treat them like children.
  - cortesoft 7y ago
    Let's keep going, though... there IS a non-zero chance that your kid can die from a vaccine. It is very very rare, and more kids will die from not getting a vaccine than from getting one, but there will exist a parent who can say truthfully that vaccines killed their kid. Can they then argue that a pro-vaccine person killed their kid? Can they sue their doctor? If we allow this line of reasoning, where does it stop? If I tell people they should let their kids play in the dirt, can they sue me if their kid gets sick from a dirt born disease? Everything has risk, and we can't make a law saying that anytime a risk event occurs you can sue someone who said to do the thing.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - cortesoft 7y ago
      Someone made an interesting counterpoint and deleted their comment while I was replying, so here is my reply to that: I don't disagree with being upset with antivaxxers and thinking they are causing real harm to our society. However, I think the harm is outweighed by the benefit of allowing people to make whatever arguments they want in public (much like I think the risk of dying from a vaccine is worth it because of the reduced risk of dying from the disease the vaccine is preventing). The alternative is having to set some sort of 'risk threshold', where you aren't allowed to argue for something that increases risk more than x%..... but that gets really complicated, because most of the times you are advocating to increase risk IN RETURN FOR SOMETHING ELSE. For example, driving a car is EXTREMELY risky (and kills way more people than die from not taking a vaccine). However, most people feel the benefit of auto transport is worth the risk. However, that is very subjective, and it would be difficult to logically and objectively argue against someone who says that risk is not worth it, and we should outlaw cars.... and anyone who advocates driving is responsible for every automobile death.
    - BryantD 7y ago
      This is exactly the kind of discussion I was thinking of, FWIW. I tend to agree with this line of thought — responsibility is too diffuse in this case. So... what are other options here? Cause it is definitely bad for the public if people stop vaccinating their kids. That’s not a risk, it’s a certainty. It is also fairly clear that a significant enough percentage of people will listen to anti-vaxxers no matter what, and they will move mountains to avoid vaccines.
jack_h 7y ago
> If you're spreading anti-vax propaganda, you're complicit in killing kids ... and any restrictions or punishment should reflect that. > If you're spreading pro-vax propaganda, you're complicit in giving kids autism ... and any restrictions or punishment should reflect that. Now I don't agree with the latter in the slightest. However, depending on who is in power and what political and social will exists at a particular time you can have two very different outcomes. This is the danger in opening up such a can of worms.
- BryantD 7y ago
  Laws always vary depending on who's in power and what social and political will exists. The can of worms was opened the minute someone said "The state/community should get to make decisions about what you can and cannot do." Now, it's harder to make those calls for indirect effects, and I definitely believe we should be more careful about it. You're totally correct about the danger. But that doesn't mean we don't have the discussions, as long as we're aware of the risks.
  - jack_h 7y ago
    I agree that these discussions are healthy. I would like to explore your initial comment though as we're dealing with culpability and intent. > When we're considering regulation, it's important to consider the activity we're regulating in context. Here's one extreme: it's legal to light a match. It's not legal to light a match and toss it into a gas pump. As you allude to intent matters here. Let's assume they went to the gas pump specifically to light a match and throw it into the gas pump. That is very specific and obvious intent and culpability is clear. Now assume this person was merely lighting a cigarette in front of the pump and an ember falls off and causes a fire. Well the intent was not to set the place ablaze, but they were still either negligent or reckless in their actions, so while they are still culpable, intent is lacking here. As a third hypothetical let's say they had a matchbook in their pocket and one match is dislodged and rubs between the striker strip and the person's cell phone, thus creating a fire while they're in front of the pump. Their intent was never to light a fire, so what is their culpability here? Limiting ourselves to matters of scientific inquiry as related to free speech for the moment, how would the idea of culpability and intent as mentioned above factor into this? Someone espousing anti-vax opinions clearly does not have the intent of killing kids, their intent as I understand it is to prevent children from becoming autistic regardless of whether science agrees with them or not. Perhaps they could be considered negligent given current scientific understanding, but how do you even begin to consider culpability? What if this is an area where science does not have an answer yet, but there's enormous public pressure to outlaw speaking about X or punish those who do. How does intent and culpability factor into this? Is it just "the law says x, you intended to violate it and are going to be held accountable" without any sort of deeper explanation as to why your rights were restricted? What happens if the science settles in the opposite direction as the laws and speech was curtailed wrongly in this specific framework? Similarly what happens if the laws are based on the science of the time, but the science itself discovers it erred in some way thus flipping it from being in agreement with to disagreement with the law? Lastly how does this extend to matters where science may not provide a useful answer? I just listened to the oral arguments given for Voisine v. United States and it's very analogous to this line of thinking. I'd highly recommend listening to it and reading the opinion.
dsfyu404ed 7y ago
>Here's one extreme: it's legal to light a match. It's not legal to light a match and toss it into a gas pump. That's not extreme. It's a perfect example of how when it comes to non-polarized issues we rationally criminalize bad actions (lighting a gas station on fire) instead of conduct that could, if used maliciously, result in bad things (lighting a match in general).
will4274 7y ago
Your first example is perfect and flatly contradicts your second. We don't punish the movies that showed people lighting cigs at gas stations when a gas pump blows up, we punish the person who actually committed the bad action. Speech about bad action is totally different than bad action and your attempt to conflate them is shameful.
- BryantD 7y ago
  You just typed a bunch of words into a text box. Did you think, as you were typing, that it didn't matter what you typed because your speech would have no effect? Or did you think that your words might convince someone to change their actions/opinions?
  - will4274 7y ago
    Of course I intended to convince people. What's your point? Adults are responsible (and in particular, legally responsible) for their own actions, not the people who taught them to act that way.
    - BryantD 7y ago
      I think that in general, if there are predictable consequences to an action I take, I have some moral responsibility for those consequences. Don't you?
      - will4274 7y ago
        Non-sequitor. We were talking about legal and you jumped to moral. I don't believe that anybody should have legal consequences for speech that doesn't incite violence or libel. Even with moral, I'd argue that the consequences have to be reasonable. It's not reasonable to take advice about vaccinations from anybody except a medical professional. I eat junk food and I tell people it's delicious. If some of them hear me say it's delicious, eat some, get fat, and die, I don't feel morally responsible - take advice about your diet from professionals, not from me.
tomp 7y ago
> If you're spreading anti-vax propaganda, you're complicit in killing kids. Also if you're spreading pro-abortion propaganda. And pro-war propaganda. And anti-war propaganda. /s Obviously ridiculous. Repeat after me: speech is not violence! Only people actually doing violence are violent. Want to criminalize not vaccinating kids? Be my guest, but I'll now and forever support people to campaign against it, and that shouldn't be illegal.
- klyrs 7y ago
  > Repeat after me: speech is not violence! You can't compel me to say so. And it's not so. Speech is a nuanced legal issue, and there are multiple well-justified limitations on that freedom. Libel is not protected speech. Incitement to violence is not protected speech. Fraud is not protected speech. You can do tangible harm with speech, ergo some utterances can and are seen as violence.
s1k3b8 7y ago
> We shouldn't regulate speech, but you should own the consequences of your actions -- speech included. This is simply terrifying. Actions should be penalized, not speech. > If you're spreading anti-vax propaganda, you're complicit in killing kids. People like you are what I fear the most. Using children to justify tyranny and oppression. Maybe you have good intentions but that's what the road to hell is paved with. You do realize that your way of thinking opens up gay rights activists to prosecution for spreading HIV? What about vegan activists? Babies and even pets have been starved to death because some people followed vegan advice. Should all vegan activists be punished? What about PR firms who create soda ads? Should we round up all of them and punish them? What about journalists? If a journalist writes a story that leads to war ( legal or illegal ) that results in the death of children, should they be prosecuted? Should librarians be prosecuted because libraries carry offensive material that people might read to cause harm? Also, you do realize that your system depends entirely on who is in charge rather than principles? What if anti-vaxxers are in charge. Your system allows them to mark all pro-vaxxers as criminals spreading propaganda. Do you really want to live in that kind of world?
- krzepah 7y ago
  I think you are jumping on his words and not taking his statement to their true meaning. Are you telling on the opposite side that someone publicly announcing false information that could harm someone should not be responsible for it? You are the one who's making me afraid.
  - username90 7y ago
    Intent matters here, and anti-vaxxers spread this information because they believe they will help the kids. Scientists are often wrong. Probably less often than other people, and probably not in the case of vaccines, but it is dumb to make it illegal in general to say things scientists disagree with. And yes, scientists say that kids die without vaccines, some people disagree, so you would actually punish them for disagreeing with scientists since otherwise you wouldn't be sure these people killed kids.
    - 7y ago

creaghpatr 7y ago

>If you're spreading anti-vax propaganda, you're complicit in killing kids. That is absolutely nuts if you believe that.

F-0X 7y ago
Is it? If A says to B, "don't vaccinate your kids", B complies, and then B's child dies of a disease it could have been vaccinated against, you would not say A had any culpability?
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- banads 7y ago
  Depends on if you think people have any free will or ability to think for themselves
  - F-0X 7y ago
    I don't think it does. People share information and learn from each other. Hence, it is important to be responsible when providing information. We frequently see disclaimers on HN, Reddit, etc. like "IANAL", so as to put forward a point of view while warning it shouldn't be taken too seriously as actionable advice. It's the sensible thing to do. Anybody spreading anti-vaccination propaganda has been convinced of it themselves.
    - banads 7y ago
      Assuming any random stranger on the internet is a licensed lawyer is stupid. Blaming other people for your own stupidity is a great way to avoid the responsibility of thinking for yourself. If we want adults to act like adults, we shouldn't treat them like children.
- cortesoft 7y ago
  Let's keep going, though... there IS a non-zero chance that your kid can die from a vaccine. It is very very rare, and more kids will die from not getting a vaccine than from getting one, but there will exist a parent who can say truthfully that vaccines killed their kid. Can they then argue that a pro-vaccine person killed their kid? Can they sue their doctor? If we allow this line of reasoning, where does it stop? If I tell people they should let their kids play in the dirt, can they sue me if their kid gets sick from a dirt born disease? Everything has risk, and we can't make a law saying that anytime a risk event occurs you can sue someone who said to do the thing.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - cortesoft 7y ago
    Someone made an interesting counterpoint and deleted their comment while I was replying, so here is my reply to that: I don't disagree with being upset with antivaxxers and thinking they are causing real harm to our society. However, I think the harm is outweighed by the benefit of allowing people to make whatever arguments they want in public (much like I think the risk of dying from a vaccine is worth it because of the reduced risk of dying from the disease the vaccine is preventing). The alternative is having to set some sort of 'risk threshold', where you aren't allowed to argue for something that increases risk more than x%..... but that gets really complicated, because most of the times you are advocating to increase risk IN RETURN FOR SOMETHING ELSE. For example, driving a car is EXTREMELY risky (and kills way more people than die from not taking a vaccine). However, most people feel the benefit of auto transport is worth the risk. However, that is very subjective, and it would be difficult to logically and objectively argue against someone who says that risk is not worth it, and we should outlaw cars.... and anyone who advocates driving is responsible for every automobile death.
  - BryantD 7y ago
    This is exactly the kind of discussion I was thinking of, FWIW. I tend to agree with this line of thought — responsibility is too diffuse in this case. So... what are other options here? Cause it is definitely bad for the public if people stop vaccinating their kids. That’s not a risk, it’s a certainty. It is also fairly clear that a significant enough percentage of people will listen to anti-vaxxers no matter what, and they will move mountains to avoid vaccines.

jack_h 7y ago

> If you're spreading anti-vax propaganda, you're complicit in killing kids ... and any restrictions or punishment should reflect that. > If you're spreading pro-vax propaganda, you're complicit in giving kids autism ... and any restrictions or punishment should reflect that. Now I don't agree with the latter in the slightest. However, depending on who is in power and what political and social will exists at a particular time you can have two very different outcomes. This is the danger in opening up such a can of worms.

BryantD 7y ago
Laws always vary depending on who's in power and what social and political will exists. The can of worms was opened the minute someone said "The state/community should get to make decisions about what you can and cannot do." Now, it's harder to make those calls for indirect effects, and I definitely believe we should be more careful about it. You're totally correct about the danger. But that doesn't mean we don't have the discussions, as long as we're aware of the risks.
- jack_h 7y ago
  I agree that these discussions are healthy. I would like to explore your initial comment though as we're dealing with culpability and intent. > When we're considering regulation, it's important to consider the activity we're regulating in context. Here's one extreme: it's legal to light a match. It's not legal to light a match and toss it into a gas pump. As you allude to intent matters here. Let's assume they went to the gas pump specifically to light a match and throw it into the gas pump. That is very specific and obvious intent and culpability is clear. Now assume this person was merely lighting a cigarette in front of the pump and an ember falls off and causes a fire. Well the intent was not to set the place ablaze, but they were still either negligent or reckless in their actions, so while they are still culpable, intent is lacking here. As a third hypothetical let's say they had a matchbook in their pocket and one match is dislodged and rubs between the striker strip and the person's cell phone, thus creating a fire while they're in front of the pump. Their intent was never to light a fire, so what is their culpability here? Limiting ourselves to matters of scientific inquiry as related to free speech for the moment, how would the idea of culpability and intent as mentioned above factor into this? Someone espousing anti-vax opinions clearly does not have the intent of killing kids, their intent as I understand it is to prevent children from becoming autistic regardless of whether science agrees with them or not. Perhaps they could be considered negligent given current scientific understanding, but how do you even begin to consider culpability? What if this is an area where science does not have an answer yet, but there's enormous public pressure to outlaw speaking about X or punish those who do. How does intent and culpability factor into this? Is it just "the law says x, you intended to violate it and are going to be held accountable" without any sort of deeper explanation as to why your rights were restricted? What happens if the science settles in the opposite direction as the laws and speech was curtailed wrongly in this specific framework? Similarly what happens if the laws are based on the science of the time, but the science itself discovers it erred in some way thus flipping it from being in agreement with to disagreement with the law? Lastly how does this extend to matters where science may not provide a useful answer? I just listened to the oral arguments given for Voisine v. United States and it's very analogous to this line of thinking. I'd highly recommend listening to it and reading the opinion.

dsfyu404ed 7y ago

>Here's one extreme: it's legal to light a match. It's not legal to light a match and toss it into a gas pump. That's not extreme. It's a perfect example of how when it comes to non-polarized issues we rationally criminalize bad actions (lighting a gas station on fire) instead of conduct that could, if used maliciously, result in bad things (lighting a match in general).

will4274 7y ago

Your first example is perfect and flatly contradicts your second. We don't punish the movies that showed people lighting cigs at gas stations when a gas pump blows up, we punish the person who actually committed the bad action. Speech about bad action is totally different than bad action and your attempt to conflate them is shameful.

BryantD 7y ago
You just typed a bunch of words into a text box. Did you think, as you were typing, that it didn't matter what you typed because your speech would have no effect? Or did you think that your words might convince someone to change their actions/opinions?
- will4274 7y ago
  Of course I intended to convince people. What's your point? Adults are responsible (and in particular, legally responsible) for their own actions, not the people who taught them to act that way.
  - BryantD 7y ago
    I think that in general, if there are predictable consequences to an action I take, I have some moral responsibility for those consequences. Don't you?
    - will4274 7y ago
      Non-sequitor. We were talking about legal and you jumped to moral. I don't believe that anybody should have legal consequences for speech that doesn't incite violence or libel. Even with moral, I'd argue that the consequences have to be reasonable. It's not reasonable to take advice about vaccinations from anybody except a medical professional. I eat junk food and I tell people it's delicious. If some of them hear me say it's delicious, eat some, get fat, and die, I don't feel morally responsible - take advice about your diet from professionals, not from me.

tomp 7y ago

> If you're spreading anti-vax propaganda, you're complicit in killing kids. Also if you're spreading pro-abortion propaganda. And pro-war propaganda. And anti-war propaganda. /s Obviously ridiculous. Repeat after me: speech is not violence! Only people actually doing violence are violent. Want to criminalize not vaccinating kids? Be my guest, but I'll now and forever support people to campaign against it, and that shouldn't be illegal.

klyrs 7y ago
> Repeat after me: speech is not violence! You can't compel me to say so. And it's not so. Speech is a nuanced legal issue, and there are multiple well-justified limitations on that freedom. Libel is not protected speech. Incitement to violence is not protected speech. Fraud is not protected speech. You can do tangible harm with speech, ergo some utterances can and are seen as violence.

s1k3b8 7y ago

> We shouldn't regulate speech, but you should own the consequences of your actions -- speech included. This is simply terrifying. Actions should be penalized, not speech. > If you're spreading anti-vax propaganda, you're complicit in killing kids. People like you are what I fear the most. Using children to justify tyranny and oppression. Maybe you have good intentions but that's what the road to hell is paved with. You do realize that your way of thinking opens up gay rights activists to prosecution for spreading HIV? What about vegan activists? Babies and even pets have been starved to death because some people followed vegan advice. Should all vegan activists be punished? What about PR firms who create soda ads? Should we round up all of them and punish them? What about journalists? If a journalist writes a story that leads to war ( legal or illegal ) that results in the death of children, should they be prosecuted? Should librarians be prosecuted because libraries carry offensive material that people might read to cause harm? Also, you do realize that your system depends entirely on who is in charge rather than principles? What if anti-vaxxers are in charge. Your system allows them to mark all pro-vaxxers as criminals spreading propaganda. Do you really want to live in that kind of world?

krzepah 7y ago
I think you are jumping on his words and not taking his statement to their true meaning. Are you telling on the opposite side that someone publicly announcing false information that could harm someone should not be responsible for it? You are the one who's making me afraid.
- username90 7y ago
  Intent matters here, and anti-vaxxers spread this information because they believe they will help the kids. Scientists are often wrong. Probably less often than other people, and probably not in the case of vaccines, but it is dumb to make it illegal in general to say things scientists disagree with. And yes, scientists say that kids die without vaccines, some people disagree, so you would actually punish them for disagreeing with scientists since otherwise you wouldn't be sure these people killed kids.
  - 7y ago