5 ms·

> 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 p

• 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.
• klyrs 7y ago
  > This is the danger in opening up such a can of worms. I agree that such matters should be approached in the utmost of delicacy. But the science is resoundingly clear on the efficacy and safety of vaccines. Taking an evidence-based approach to when people are spreading known-and-shown false information to the known-and-shown harm of many would be prudent (like, for example, when 60 people die and 4000 are infected in a measles outbreak, ongoing this week). Just saying "oh well gosh people are going to bothsides this issue to death" is complacent support of harmful propaganda. As the adage goes, your right to swing your fist ends at my face.
  • username90 7y ago
    > But the science is resoundingly clear on the efficacy and safety of vaccines. Are you sure this applies to every vaccine used today? And for all vaccines that will be used in the future? I wouldn't be surprised if there has been vaccines which did more harm than good, and making it illegal to question them seems like a recipe for disaster.
    • klyrs 7y ago
      > And for all vaccines that will be used in the future? What an absurd presumption. Erect a slippery slope and challenge me to defend it all the way to the bottom? No thank. These things need intensive scientific studies to be proven safe. I assume that most will fail before they reach human trial. And policies surrounding vaccines should be done on a case by case basis.