7 ms·

Samoa arrests vaccination critic amid deadly measles crisis

70 points by reddotX 7y ago

notimetorelax 7y ago
Seems appropriate given the current emergency.
- nwah1 7y ago
  On the other hand, in the US freedom of speech would likely protect this person. And there are strong arguments in favor of absolutist versions of freedom of speech.
  - krapp 7y ago
    >And there are strong arguments in favor of absolutist versions of freedom of speech. First, American freedom of speech isn't absolutist. There are laws against certain kinds of speech in the US, such as fraud, slander, libel, incitement to violence, conspiracy, etc. And many people seem to believe that Americans' right of association is in conflict with freedom of speech, as it allows the owners of private venues to determine what forms of speech can and cannot take place in those venues. Second, this is not a strong argument in favor unless you happen to be an anti-vaxxer or simply lack empathy.
    - godshatter 7y ago
      > Second, this is not a strong argument in favor unless you happen to be an anti-vaxxer or simply lack empathy. He spoke out against vaccines on Facebook, and suggested using papaya leaves and/or vitamin C instead. You don't have to be an anti-vaxxer or lack empathy to disagree with his being arrested for this.
      - krapp 7y ago
        >He spoke out against vaccines on Facebook, and suggested using papaya leaves and/or vitamin C instead. In other words, he suggested people in the midst of an outbreak of a deadly, contagious but treatable disease avoid that treatment in favor of homeopathic bullshit that will only result in more deaths and further contagion. Believing he should be allowed to do so without consequence shows a complete lack of empathy for his victims.
        godshatter 7y ago
        Sure, I totally disagree with him, but I'd like the bar for freedom of speech to be a bit higher that. He didn't specifically threaten anyone, and he's not dispensing advice in a professional capacity. He's just some guy with a different opinion, on that bastion of obvious truth known as Facebook posts. That opinion might lead someone who reads it to not get vaccinated, which might cause real problems, but just putting his opinion out there shouldn't be cause for arrest. In my, obviously unpopular, opinion.
        krapp 7y ago
        > He's just some guy with a different opinion, on that bastion of obvious truth known as Facebook posts. Not really, though. I searched his name and found an interview with Stuff magazine[0] which describes him as a "Samoan traditional healer and well known anti-vaxxer." It also describes his social media efforts as being far more active than "just putting his opinion out there" would imply. This isn't some random guy the government decided to harass for "wrongthink", He's an activist trying to undermine and hinder his government's attempt to vaccinate people in the midst of a medical emergency, as part of a greater anti-vaccination movement. [0]https://www.stuff.co.nz/world/south-pacific/117918981/samoa-measles-outbreak-edwin-tamasese-first-antivaxxer-arrested https://www.stuff.co.nz/world/south-pacific/117918981/samoa-...
    - the_watcher 7y ago
      > fraud, slander, libel, incitement to violence, conspiracy, etc. Let's go one by one: * Fraud: not sure what you mean here. Fraudulent speech? Lying isn't a crime. Fraud is a crime that might involve speech, but there are more elements than simply stating an untruth. * Slander/libel: Yes, this is an exception, but it is notably narrow and again has additional required elements. * Incitement to violence: Nope. Incitement to _lawless_ action is simply one of the elements of the sole case in which someone can be prosecuted for _speech alone_ ("directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.") * Conspiracy: Again, unsure what you mean. Where is the "conspiracy" exception to free speech?
      - thaumasiotes 7y ago
        > Lying isn't a crime. Wellllll... In the US, the courts are split over whether untrue speech is protected by the first amendment. And there are some very wide-ranging laws that require "honest dealing" or "honest services" in general at all times.
        the_watcher 7y ago
        Can you provide citations for this? "Honest dealing" and "honest services" laws all require more than simply "untrue speech", in every case that I've seen.
        thaumasiotes 7y ago
        The recent college admissions scandal mostly charged parents with wire fraud, if I recall correctly. The fraudulent part of their conduct consisted solely of untrue speech, representing to a school that an SAT score was earned by their child when it wasn't, or representing to the College Board that the person taking the test was their child when it wasn't.[1] [1] There were other methods, but the two I list here seem in my eyes to consist exclusively of untrue speech. There were also fraud charges associated with representing payments as donations to a charity (for tax reasons) when they were meant as quid pro quo payment for services. If the tax fraud was the basis for every fraud charge, I'll admit that this example is invalid.
  - marmada 7y ago
    I find it interesting how people on HN are decidedly non-Utilitarian. I don't know, but for some reason I expected software engineers to be utilitarian.
    - averros 7y ago
      Utilitarianism is illogical since its application requires ignoring the fact that utility is not singular (i.e. whose exactly utility is that?)
  - marmada 7y ago
    I find it interesting how people on HN are decidedly non-Utilitarian. I don't know, but for some reason I expected software engineers to be utilitarian. Not exactly sure why
    - Jedd 7y ago
      Not everyone, in any given community, are located at the same place on the rationality spectrum. Not everyone, in the HN community, is a software engineer.
      - mcguire 7y ago
        Is Utilitarianism associated with rationality? (Quick reference to "The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas" before I forget the name again.)
    - toasterlovin 7y ago
      Perhaps the Utilitarian view is actually that freedom of speech leads to the best outcome for the most people, even with all of its negative side effects.
    - thaumasiotes 7y ago
      Utilitarianism does not induce a stable steady state. It thinks of everyone as having a set of wants (of some cardinal magnitude), and says you should arrange the world so that the total magnitude of satisfied wants is maximized. The immediate implication is that, in order to get something, the right approach is to want it more. This produces no benefit to anyone, but it lets you appropriate things that used to be assigned to other people. I would prefer to relabel "wants" as "demands", admit they do indeed have different magnitudes, but also assign a quantity measuring the reasonableness of the demand. The mere fact that you want something isn't evidence that you should have it.
  - henryfjordan 7y ago
    > On the other hand, in the US freedom of speech would likely protect this person I'm not so sure of that. You cannot yell "FIRE!" in a crowded American movie theater because of the danger it creates. The government in this case declared a state of emergency and this person ignored that emergency and instead fanned the anti-vaxx flames, which feels pretty similar to causing a stampede in a theater for no reason. That seems like a cunning DA could argue reckless endangerment of a child to me...
    - the_watcher 7y ago
      This is not the standard in the US (although it's an incredibly common misconception), which is defined by Brandenberg v. Ohio, and requires " "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."[0] In other words, it must not only have a purpose of inciting _lawless_ (not dangerous) action, but likely to produce said action. Additionally, while the case involves "fire in a crowded theater", it's in a substantially more narrow concurrence that holds that the speech would have to, additionally, _actually produce_ said action. Under existing the "fire in a crowded theater standard" suggested here, yelling "FIRE" in a packed theater, but everyone ignoring you would be protected. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio
      - henryfjordan 7y ago
        Thanks for offering some clarification! For the sake of argument, the law in Samoa under the state of emergency is that you must vaccinate. Is the accused not attempting to incite lawless behavior by telling people to not vaccinate? If one person resists because they read his FB posts, that seems enough to me.
        the_watcher 7y ago
        American law doesn't apply in Samoa (as opposed to American Samoa). But for the sake of argument, yes, it would satisfy part of one element ("directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action"). However it wouldn't satisfy the imminence requirement. Further, it would not satisfy the other ("is likely to incite or produce such action"). It's fairly easy to see that this is the case just by looking at what Americans have actually said. A memorable example to me was Zach de la Rosa telling the crowd at Coachella 2007 that every President since Truman should be lined up and shot. That is absolutely inciting lawless action, but no one with any kind of understanding of US free speech law would suggest he could be prosecuted.
- electriclove 7y ago
  "the ends justify the means” ?
  - anon73044 7y ago
    One man's rights can't be violated to save a few hundred/thousand lives? Ideally, they shouldn't be but in a state of emergency, you can bet they will be and the Courts can sort it out after the fact. It's not exactly like they took him out back and shot him for disagreeing. Though, it would be super ironic if he caught measles while locked up.
    - electriclove 7y ago
      I agree with your take. Other comments are going into freedom of speech or anti vaxxers and I think those are complicated issues but aren't quite the crux of this story.
    - lazylizard 7y ago
      The problem is. If i can override congress in times of war. Then I'll make sure we're permanently at war.
      - anon73044 7y ago
        Going the Sith route, eh? But seriously, parts of the Patriot Act are still in use and enforceable, and so far neither party has seriously taken any attempts to do away with it. Is that "right" or "just" or "fair"? Hell no. But nobody ever said this life is fair.
- mberning 7y ago
  That is a very bad argument, along the same lines of “why do you need privacy if you have nothing to hide”.
rahuldottech 7y ago
> Samoa declared a state of emergency, and made vaccinations compulsory. As long as reasonable exceptions are made for children who can't get vaccinated due to medical conditions, and it's ensured that they get vaccines from reputed sources, I see nothing wrong with this.
jimmcslim 7y ago
One wonders when we might see the same thing happen in regards to the emerging climate emergency.
- jessaustin 7y ago
  [EDIT: removed some mild irony.] Is free speech really what's holding back significant action to combat global warming? Isn't it possible that speech restrictions could have a negative effect on public support for such significant action?
  - Koremat6666 7y ago
    I am not sure if this sort of language and comments are encouraged on HN. Are we advocating arrest of individuals we disagree with ? Is this the new silicon valley mob with hi-tech pitchforks ?
    - dylan604 7y ago
      Slippery slopes. There are certain "theories" that irk me so that I'd be okay with them being arrested (almost). Flat earth believers are the top of the list.
      - mcguire 7y ago
        That seems excessive. Flat earthers are a tiny minority and almost completely harmless as far as I know.
- mberning 7y ago
  Hopefully never in the west. Using the power of the state to silence people is decidedly illiberal.
  - goalieca 7y ago
    Doubtful that is illiberal. Many liberal democracies have different views on free speech than the USA.
davidw 7y ago
This is relevant to social media: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/nov/07/firehosing-the-systemic-strategy-that-anti-vaxxers-are-using-to-spread-misinformation https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/nov/07/fireho... A local legislator backed some vaccination legislation here in Oregon, and she cannot post anything to social media without a horde of people from that crazy death cult popping up to rant and screech.
- Koremat6666 7y ago
  It is in appropriate to call other individuals "death cult" or crazy. This does not lead to a constructive discussion on HN and leads to needless flamewars.
  - mjcohen 7y ago
    https://www.npr.org/2019/12/06/785487606/samoa-arrests-anti-vaccination-activist-as-measles-death-toll-rises https://www.npr.org/2019/12/06/785487606/samoa-arrests-anti-...
  - fastball 7y ago
    Their behavior is leading directly to more deaths. How is that not crazy / death cult?
    - SamReidHughes 7y ago
      Actually it leads indirectly. But there's "vaccines cause autism" people and then there's "a vaccine killed my first baby and I don't want to give that vaccine to my second baby" people. Not to mention the "holy cow the USA has an intense vaccination schedule compared to other countries'" people. The "beep boop vaccinate everybody" attitude is popular because it makes people feel smarter and morally superior to others.
      - fastball 7y ago
        How many people are there where a vaccine actually killed their baby?
dyingkneepad 7y ago
As someone who has a kid who is still too young to get certain vaccines (including Measles), I am terrified of going to crowded places. Seriously, unvaccinated people represent a threat to my son. This is not like being a flat-earther where you spread misinformation but you don't really harm people in a meaningful way. By spreading anti-vaxx information you are indirectly killing babies, children and adults. It is in the interest of society to stop you from doing harm.
- HBKXNCUO 7y ago
  From https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/measles-outbreak/measles-outbreaks-make-2018-near-record-year-u-s-n961276 https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/measles-outbreak/measles-o... >In 2018, 349 individual cases of measles were confirmed in 26 states and the District of Columbia. With a hospitalization rate of 1 in 4 and a death rate of 1-2 in 1000, and about 1 in a million people getting the disease per year, if you are terrified of your child getting measles, you should see a therapist.
  - progman32 7y ago
    Measles isn't the only vaccine-preventable deadly disease though.
    - HBKXNCUO 7y ago
      Other than the flu, none of them kill more than a handful of children per year.
  - toasterlovin 7y ago
    FWIW, while the stats are appreciated, the remark about seeing a therapist is needlessly antagonistic.
    - HBKXNCUO 7y ago
      I don't think so. If he is genuinely terrified of something that is that unlikely to kill or seriously harm his child, it would be in his interest to see a therapist about that. I am guessing that his statement was actually just needlessly hyperbolic, in which case I don't see anything wrong with a bit of antagonism.
someonehere 7y ago
I don’t know if anyone read the details, but the reason there’s concern is two babies died from receiving measles vaccines in 2018: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-50625680 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-50625680 “Samoa's low vaccination rates are in part due to the deaths in 2018 of two children given a wrongly-mixed vaccine.” I think most rational people who are questioning the safety of vaccines are not the Jenny McCarthy autism fearists, it’s parents who are worried about vaccine safety from situations like this where two babies died. If it was your baby and you were doing the right thing by vaccinating and your baby died, how would you feel about vaccines after that? What if that baby that died was a relative? Your neighbor next door? Your coworkers baby? You might question the safety of vaccines after that. The parents are already feeling bad about putting their trust in pharmaceutical companies, are they nuts to stay away from vaccines now? I think many people take the side of “anti-vaxxers are the worst people in the world!” for granted because they’ve never had a relative or someone close to them die from a vaccine. If vaccines are supposed to be safe, then why did this happen? Mistakes happen, but would you gamble that risk after having someone close to you dying from a vaccination?
- hamaluik 7y ago
  And what about if your baby dies from measles because you didn't vaccinate them? What if the baby that died was a relative? Your neighbor next door? You coworkers baby? You might question the sanity of anti-vaxxers after that. Worse yet, what if your baby can't get the vaccine because they have another disease that precludes getting a vaccine? What if your baby dies because there isn't any more herd immunity? Two babies dying in 2018 from a wrongly-mixed vaccine is a travesty, but that was a medical mistake. Thousands of babies dying because of ignorance and arrogance is the real sin.
  - fzeroracer 7y ago
    The problem with arguing against anti-vaxxers is the disconnect between vaccinations and the lives they save. Proper vaccination is entirely invisible. When people die due to a vaccination not being 100% effective or due to a bad reaction, people claim it's useless. Then more people stop vaccinating, which then hurts herd immunity and makes the vaccine less effective which then causes more people to not take it and start a nasty cycle. You can't point to the lives vaccines have saved until you have a travesty caused by people not being vaccinated. Unfortunately this cycle will likely make completely eradicating diseases in the future really difficult without compulsory vaccinations.
petermcneeley 7y ago
The issue here is should individuals be responsible for the consequences of actions of others given their speech. I think the classical answer is No. I think it's anti enlightenment thinking to punish people for their discourse. https://youtu.be/myo7uSM91bc https://youtu.be/myo7uSM91bc
- mcguire 7y ago
  Do not yell "fire!" in a crowded theater, especially if there is no fire.
  - egdod 7y ago
    >especially I mean, if there is a fire, it’s probably ok to yell about it.
    - thaumasiotes 7y ago
      It's an interesting question. The yelling causes pretty much identical harm regardless of whether the fire is there. Evacuating (in general) is a difficult problem because you want to do it without letting everyone know what's going on. We mostly say yelling "fire!" is ok when the fire exists because it looks bad to punish the true alarm, not because the false alarm is worse than the true one.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
- perspective1 7y ago
  If I yell "he's got a gun" as a prank intending people to stampeded out of a movie theater, trampeling and killing a someone in the panic, I'm responsible for the very predictable consequences. If I promote tea leaves as an effective innoculation to measels preventing people to get a life-saving vaccination, I'm responsible for the predictable consequences. There's a fine line somewhere and probably has something to do with opinion vs fact, but it's not crossed here.
- krapp 7y ago
the_watcher 7y ago
For Americans, I recommend reading about the actual free speech standard in the US (Brandenburg v. Ohio). While "Fire in a crowded theater" appears, it's in a concurrence, and actually used to suggest that the standard created in the decision may even go too far. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio
- iudqnolq 7y ago
  The term comes from Schenk v. United States, and was used to argue that it wasn't unconstitutional to imprison a communist activist for printing and handing out flyers arguing that people shouldn't turn themselves in if they were to be drafted. From a modern perspective what Schenk did appears incredibly tame, and I believe nearly anyone using the phrase today would find the central holding of the case absurd; I don't think any reasonable person nowadays believes asking people not to cooperate with the government in wartime should be illegal. Brandenburg v. Ohio partially overturned Schenk, and while I agree reading about it is worthwhile unfortunately US law is sufficiently complicated that no one case exists that can be read to fully understand the current law around free speech in the US. I'd instead recommend the ACLU's position paper: https://www.aclu.org/other/freedom-expression-aclu-position-paper https://www.aclu.org/other/freedom-expression-aclu-position-... . Note that while they make a very good case for what the law is, not every court in the country would agree with them.
shrubble 7y ago
What is the needed percentage of people that need to be vaccinated, for there to be herd immunity? And, what is the efficacy of the vaccine for Samoans? That is if you need 80% immunized for herd immunity and 95% of the immunized group develop antibodies, then you need more than 80% to be immunized.
throwawaysea 7y ago
These arrests are anti-free-speech and therefore anti-freedom. This is a classic short-sighted decision that opens the door for widening definitions of crises, emergencies, etc. to justify any action or shut down opposing views. While these arrests have a clear and problematic free speech issue, I also think societies should be careful to preserve bodily autonomy in instances like this. People have a right to decide what goes or doesn't go in their own or their children's bodies. They get to decide what risks they are willing to take or not willing to take. Bodily autonomy is also an important part of the argument to preserve a woman's right to choose (abortion rights). Lastly - are people really factually wrong to distrust vaccines or the medical world in general? Note that this article mentions how nurses administered vaccines incorrectly previously (by mixing the vaccine with muscle relaxants), which is what set off public suspicion in the first place. That's the type of unexpected risk vector that spooks people and causes them to see risk even in highly-safe treatments, since some dangerous flaw can surprise patients out of nowhere. The medical world is full of stories of malpractice, orthogonal to the safety/efficacy of individual medicines. So it is totally understandable for people to sound the alarm and warn others. I also want to point out that there are various legitimate stories or issues for people to view vaccines with speculation/distrust: 1. Experimental vaccines administered in unsanctioned trials (2018: https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/recipients-of-experimental-herpes-vaccine-file-lawsuit-29953 https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/recipients-of-exp...) 2. WHO and FDA approve controversial vaccine despite serious safety issues, and then eventually reverse approval (2019: https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2019/05/03/719037789/botched-vaccine-launch-has-deadly-repercussions https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2019/05/03/7190377...) 3. Note that even tenured vaccines do have a non-zero risk rate. See safety data at https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/vaccines/mmr-vaccine.html https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/vaccines/mmr-vaccine.html for the MMR vaccine specifically. Talking about those issues openly and with precision (characterizing risks/tradeoffs transparently) is an important part of building public trust, getting things right, holding various parties accountable, and ultimately avoiding epidemics.

70 points by reddotX 7y ago

notimetorelax 7y ago

Seems appropriate given the current emergency.

nwah1 7y ago
On the other hand, in the US freedom of speech would likely protect this person. And there are strong arguments in favor of absolutist versions of freedom of speech.
- krapp 7y ago
  >And there are strong arguments in favor of absolutist versions of freedom of speech. First, American freedom of speech isn't absolutist. There are laws against certain kinds of speech in the US, such as fraud, slander, libel, incitement to violence, conspiracy, etc. And many people seem to believe that Americans' right of association is in conflict with freedom of speech, as it allows the owners of private venues to determine what forms of speech can and cannot take place in those venues. Second, this is not a strong argument in favor unless you happen to be an anti-vaxxer or simply lack empathy.
  - godshatter 7y ago
    > Second, this is not a strong argument in favor unless you happen to be an anti-vaxxer or simply lack empathy. He spoke out against vaccines on Facebook, and suggested using papaya leaves and/or vitamin C instead. You don't have to be an anti-vaxxer or lack empathy to disagree with his being arrested for this.
    - krapp 7y ago
      >He spoke out against vaccines on Facebook, and suggested using papaya leaves and/or vitamin C instead. In other words, he suggested people in the midst of an outbreak of a deadly, contagious but treatable disease avoid that treatment in favor of homeopathic bullshit that will only result in more deaths and further contagion. Believing he should be allowed to do so without consequence shows a complete lack of empathy for his victims.
      - godshatter 7y ago
        Sure, I totally disagree with him, but I'd like the bar for freedom of speech to be a bit higher that. He didn't specifically threaten anyone, and he's not dispensing advice in a professional capacity. He's just some guy with a different opinion, on that bastion of obvious truth known as Facebook posts. That opinion might lead someone who reads it to not get vaccinated, which might cause real problems, but just putting his opinion out there shouldn't be cause for arrest. In my, obviously unpopular, opinion.
        krapp 7y ago
        > He's just some guy with a different opinion, on that bastion of obvious truth known as Facebook posts. Not really, though. I searched his name and found an interview with Stuff magazine[0] which describes him as a "Samoan traditional healer and well known anti-vaxxer." It also describes his social media efforts as being far more active than "just putting his opinion out there" would imply. This isn't some random guy the government decided to harass for "wrongthink", He's an activist trying to undermine and hinder his government's attempt to vaccinate people in the midst of a medical emergency, as part of a greater anti-vaccination movement. [0]https://www.stuff.co.nz/world/south-pacific/117918981/samoa-measles-outbreak-edwin-tamasese-first-antivaxxer-arrested https://www.stuff.co.nz/world/south-pacific/117918981/samoa-...
  - the_watcher 7y ago
    > fraud, slander, libel, incitement to violence, conspiracy, etc. Let's go one by one: * Fraud: not sure what you mean here. Fraudulent speech? Lying isn't a crime. Fraud is a crime that might involve speech, but there are more elements than simply stating an untruth. * Slander/libel: Yes, this is an exception, but it is notably narrow and again has additional required elements. * Incitement to violence: Nope. Incitement to _lawless_ action is simply one of the elements of the sole case in which someone can be prosecuted for _speech alone_ ("directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.") * Conspiracy: Again, unsure what you mean. Where is the "conspiracy" exception to free speech?
    - thaumasiotes 7y ago
      > Lying isn't a crime. Wellllll... In the US, the courts are split over whether untrue speech is protected by the first amendment. And there are some very wide-ranging laws that require "honest dealing" or "honest services" in general at all times.
      - the_watcher 7y ago
        Can you provide citations for this? "Honest dealing" and "honest services" laws all require more than simply "untrue speech", in every case that I've seen.
        thaumasiotes 7y ago
        The recent college admissions scandal mostly charged parents with wire fraud, if I recall correctly. The fraudulent part of their conduct consisted solely of untrue speech, representing to a school that an SAT score was earned by their child when it wasn't, or representing to the College Board that the person taking the test was their child when it wasn't.[1] [1] There were other methods, but the two I list here seem in my eyes to consist exclusively of untrue speech. There were also fraud charges associated with representing payments as donations to a charity (for tax reasons) when they were meant as quid pro quo payment for services. If the tax fraud was the basis for every fraud charge, I'll admit that this example is invalid.
- marmada 7y ago
  I find it interesting how people on HN are decidedly non-Utilitarian. I don't know, but for some reason I expected software engineers to be utilitarian.
  - averros 7y ago
    Utilitarianism is illogical since its application requires ignoring the fact that utility is not singular (i.e. whose exactly utility is that?)
- marmada 7y ago
  I find it interesting how people on HN are decidedly non-Utilitarian. I don't know, but for some reason I expected software engineers to be utilitarian. Not exactly sure why
  - Jedd 7y ago
    Not everyone, in any given community, are located at the same place on the rationality spectrum. Not everyone, in the HN community, is a software engineer.
    - mcguire 7y ago
      Is Utilitarianism associated with rationality? (Quick reference to "The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas" before I forget the name again.)
  - toasterlovin 7y ago
    Perhaps the Utilitarian view is actually that freedom of speech leads to the best outcome for the most people, even with all of its negative side effects.
  - thaumasiotes 7y ago
    Utilitarianism does not induce a stable steady state. It thinks of everyone as having a set of wants (of some cardinal magnitude), and says you should arrange the world so that the total magnitude of satisfied wants is maximized. The immediate implication is that, in order to get something, the right approach is to want it more. This produces no benefit to anyone, but it lets you appropriate things that used to be assigned to other people. I would prefer to relabel "wants" as "demands", admit they do indeed have different magnitudes, but also assign a quantity measuring the reasonableness of the demand. The mere fact that you want something isn't evidence that you should have it.
- henryfjordan 7y ago
  > On the other hand, in the US freedom of speech would likely protect this person I'm not so sure of that. You cannot yell "FIRE!" in a crowded American movie theater because of the danger it creates. The government in this case declared a state of emergency and this person ignored that emergency and instead fanned the anti-vaxx flames, which feels pretty similar to causing a stampede in a theater for no reason. That seems like a cunning DA could argue reckless endangerment of a child to me...
  - the_watcher 7y ago
    This is not the standard in the US (although it's an incredibly common misconception), which is defined by Brandenberg v. Ohio, and requires " "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."[0] In other words, it must not only have a purpose of inciting _lawless_ (not dangerous) action, but likely to produce said action. Additionally, while the case involves "fire in a crowded theater", it's in a substantially more narrow concurrence that holds that the speech would have to, additionally, _actually produce_ said action. Under existing the "fire in a crowded theater standard" suggested here, yelling "FIRE" in a packed theater, but everyone ignoring you would be protected. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio
    - henryfjordan 7y ago
      Thanks for offering some clarification! For the sake of argument, the law in Samoa under the state of emergency is that you must vaccinate. Is the accused not attempting to incite lawless behavior by telling people to not vaccinate? If one person resists because they read his FB posts, that seems enough to me.
      - the_watcher 7y ago
        American law doesn't apply in Samoa (as opposed to American Samoa). But for the sake of argument, yes, it would satisfy part of one element ("directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action"). However it wouldn't satisfy the imminence requirement. Further, it would not satisfy the other ("is likely to incite or produce such action"). It's fairly easy to see that this is the case just by looking at what Americans have actually said. A memorable example to me was Zach de la Rosa telling the crowd at Coachella 2007 that every President since Truman should be lined up and shot. That is absolutely inciting lawless action, but no one with any kind of understanding of US free speech law would suggest he could be prosecuted.
electriclove 7y ago
"the ends justify the means” ?
- anon73044 7y ago
  One man's rights can't be violated to save a few hundred/thousand lives? Ideally, they shouldn't be but in a state of emergency, you can bet they will be and the Courts can sort it out after the fact. It's not exactly like they took him out back and shot him for disagreeing. Though, it would be super ironic if he caught measles while locked up.
  - electriclove 7y ago
    I agree with your take. Other comments are going into freedom of speech or anti vaxxers and I think those are complicated issues but aren't quite the crux of this story.
  - lazylizard 7y ago
    The problem is. If i can override congress in times of war. Then I'll make sure we're permanently at war.
    - anon73044 7y ago
      Going the Sith route, eh? But seriously, parts of the Patriot Act are still in use and enforceable, and so far neither party has seriously taken any attempts to do away with it. Is that "right" or "just" or "fair"? Hell no. But nobody ever said this life is fair.
mberning 7y ago
That is a very bad argument, along the same lines of “why do you need privacy if you have nothing to hide”.

rahuldottech 7y ago

> Samoa declared a state of emergency, and made vaccinations compulsory. As long as reasonable exceptions are made for children who can't get vaccinated due to medical conditions, and it's ensured that they get vaccines from reputed sources, I see nothing wrong with this.

jimmcslim 7y ago

One wonders when we might see the same thing happen in regards to the emerging climate emergency.

jessaustin 7y ago
[EDIT: removed some mild irony.] Is free speech really what's holding back significant action to combat global warming? Isn't it possible that speech restrictions could have a negative effect on public support for such significant action?
- Koremat6666 7y ago
  I am not sure if this sort of language and comments are encouraged on HN. Are we advocating arrest of individuals we disagree with ? Is this the new silicon valley mob with hi-tech pitchforks ?
  - dylan604 7y ago
    Slippery slopes. There are certain "theories" that irk me so that I'd be okay with them being arrested (almost). Flat earth believers are the top of the list.
    - mcguire 7y ago
      That seems excessive. Flat earthers are a tiny minority and almost completely harmless as far as I know.
mberning 7y ago
Hopefully never in the west. Using the power of the state to silence people is decidedly illiberal.
- goalieca 7y ago
  Doubtful that is illiberal. Many liberal democracies have different views on free speech than the USA.

davidw 7y ago

This is relevant to social media: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/nov/07/firehosing-the-systemic-strategy-that-anti-vaxxers-are-using-to-spread-misinformation https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/nov/07/fireho... A local legislator backed some vaccination legislation here in Oregon, and she cannot post anything to social media without a horde of people from that crazy death cult popping up to rant and screech.

Koremat6666 7y ago
It is in appropriate to call other individuals "death cult" or crazy. This does not lead to a constructive discussion on HN and leads to needless flamewars.
- mjcohen 7y ago
  https://www.npr.org/2019/12/06/785487606/samoa-arrests-anti-vaccination-activist-as-measles-death-toll-rises https://www.npr.org/2019/12/06/785487606/samoa-arrests-anti-...
- fastball 7y ago
  Their behavior is leading directly to more deaths. How is that not crazy / death cult?
  - SamReidHughes 7y ago
    Actually it leads indirectly. But there's "vaccines cause autism" people and then there's "a vaccine killed my first baby and I don't want to give that vaccine to my second baby" people. Not to mention the "holy cow the USA has an intense vaccination schedule compared to other countries'" people. The "beep boop vaccinate everybody" attitude is popular because it makes people feel smarter and morally superior to others.
    - fastball 7y ago
      How many people are there where a vaccine actually killed their baby?

dyingkneepad 7y ago

As someone who has a kid who is still too young to get certain vaccines (including Measles), I am terrified of going to crowded places. Seriously, unvaccinated people represent a threat to my son. This is not like being a flat-earther where you spread misinformation but you don't really harm people in a meaningful way. By spreading anti-vaxx information you are indirectly killing babies, children and adults. It is in the interest of society to stop you from doing harm.

HBKXNCUO 7y ago
From https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/measles-outbreak/measles-outbreaks-make-2018-near-record-year-u-s-n961276 https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/measles-outbreak/measles-o... >In 2018, 349 individual cases of measles were confirmed in 26 states and the District of Columbia. With a hospitalization rate of 1 in 4 and a death rate of 1-2 in 1000, and about 1 in a million people getting the disease per year, if you are terrified of your child getting measles, you should see a therapist.
- progman32 7y ago
  Measles isn't the only vaccine-preventable deadly disease though.
  - HBKXNCUO 7y ago
    Other than the flu, none of them kill more than a handful of children per year.
- toasterlovin 7y ago
  FWIW, while the stats are appreciated, the remark about seeing a therapist is needlessly antagonistic.
  - HBKXNCUO 7y ago
    I don't think so. If he is genuinely terrified of something that is that unlikely to kill or seriously harm his child, it would be in his interest to see a therapist about that. I am guessing that his statement was actually just needlessly hyperbolic, in which case I don't see anything wrong with a bit of antagonism.

someonehere 7y ago

I don’t know if anyone read the details, but the reason there’s concern is two babies died from receiving measles vaccines in 2018: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-50625680 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-50625680 “Samoa's low vaccination rates are in part due to the deaths in 2018 of two children given a wrongly-mixed vaccine.” I think most rational people who are questioning the safety of vaccines are not the Jenny McCarthy autism fearists, it’s parents who are worried about vaccine safety from situations like this where two babies died. If it was your baby and you were doing the right thing by vaccinating and your baby died, how would you feel about vaccines after that? What if that baby that died was a relative? Your neighbor next door? Your coworkers baby? You might question the safety of vaccines after that. The parents are already feeling bad about putting their trust in pharmaceutical companies, are they nuts to stay away from vaccines now? I think many people take the side of “anti-vaxxers are the worst people in the world!” for granted because they’ve never had a relative or someone close to them die from a vaccine. If vaccines are supposed to be safe, then why did this happen? Mistakes happen, but would you gamble that risk after having someone close to you dying from a vaccination?

hamaluik 7y ago
And what about if your baby dies from measles because you didn't vaccinate them? What if the baby that died was a relative? Your neighbor next door? You coworkers baby? You might question the sanity of anti-vaxxers after that. Worse yet, what if your baby can't get the vaccine because they have another disease that precludes getting a vaccine? What if your baby dies because there isn't any more herd immunity? Two babies dying in 2018 from a wrongly-mixed vaccine is a travesty, but that was a medical mistake. Thousands of babies dying because of ignorance and arrogance is the real sin.
- fzeroracer 7y ago
  The problem with arguing against anti-vaxxers is the disconnect between vaccinations and the lives they save. Proper vaccination is entirely invisible. When people die due to a vaccination not being 100% effective or due to a bad reaction, people claim it's useless. Then more people stop vaccinating, which then hurts herd immunity and makes the vaccine less effective which then causes more people to not take it and start a nasty cycle. You can't point to the lives vaccines have saved until you have a travesty caused by people not being vaccinated. Unfortunately this cycle will likely make completely eradicating diseases in the future really difficult without compulsory vaccinations.

petermcneeley 7y ago

The issue here is should individuals be responsible for the consequences of actions of others given their speech. I think the classical answer is No. I think it's anti enlightenment thinking to punish people for their discourse. https://youtu.be/myo7uSM91bc https://youtu.be/myo7uSM91bc

mcguire 7y ago
Do not yell "fire!" in a crowded theater, especially if there is no fire.
- egdod 7y ago
  >especially I mean, if there is a fire, it’s probably ok to yell about it.
  - thaumasiotes 7y ago
    It's an interesting question. The yelling causes pretty much identical harm regardless of whether the fire is there. Evacuating (in general) is a difficult problem because you want to do it without letting everyone know what's going on. We mostly say yelling "fire!" is ok when the fire exists because it looks bad to punish the true alarm, not because the false alarm is worse than the true one.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
perspective1 7y ago
If I yell "he's got a gun" as a prank intending people to stampeded out of a movie theater, trampeling and killing a someone in the panic, I'm responsible for the very predictable consequences. If I promote tea leaves as an effective innoculation to measels preventing people to get a life-saving vaccination, I'm responsible for the predictable consequences. There's a fine line somewhere and probably has something to do with opinion vs fact, but it's not crossed here.
krapp 7y ago

the_watcher 7y ago

For Americans, I recommend reading about the actual free speech standard in the US (Brandenburg v. Ohio). While "Fire in a crowded theater" appears, it's in a concurrence, and actually used to suggest that the standard created in the decision may even go too far. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio

iudqnolq 7y ago
The term comes from Schenk v. United States, and was used to argue that it wasn't unconstitutional to imprison a communist activist for printing and handing out flyers arguing that people shouldn't turn themselves in if they were to be drafted. From a modern perspective what Schenk did appears incredibly tame, and I believe nearly anyone using the phrase today would find the central holding of the case absurd; I don't think any reasonable person nowadays believes asking people not to cooperate with the government in wartime should be illegal. Brandenburg v. Ohio partially overturned Schenk, and while I agree reading about it is worthwhile unfortunately US law is sufficiently complicated that no one case exists that can be read to fully understand the current law around free speech in the US. I'd instead recommend the ACLU's position paper: https://www.aclu.org/other/freedom-expression-aclu-position-paper https://www.aclu.org/other/freedom-expression-aclu-position-... . Note that while they make a very good case for what the law is, not every court in the country would agree with them.

shrubble 7y ago

What is the needed percentage of people that need to be vaccinated, for there to be herd immunity? And, what is the efficacy of the vaccine for Samoans? That is if you need 80% immunized for herd immunity and 95% of the immunized group develop antibodies, then you need more than 80% to be immunized.

throwawaysea 7y ago

These arrests are anti-free-speech and therefore anti-freedom. This is a classic short-sighted decision that opens the door for widening definitions of crises, emergencies, etc. to justify any action or shut down opposing views. While these arrests have a clear and problematic free speech issue, I also think societies should be careful to preserve bodily autonomy in instances like this. People have a right to decide what goes or doesn't go in their own or their children's bodies. They get to decide what risks they are willing to take or not willing to take. Bodily autonomy is also an important part of the argument to preserve a woman's right to choose (abortion rights). Lastly - are people really factually wrong to distrust vaccines or the medical world in general? Note that this article mentions how nurses administered vaccines incorrectly previously (by mixing the vaccine with muscle relaxants), which is what set off public suspicion in the first place. That's the type of unexpected risk vector that spooks people and causes them to see risk even in highly-safe treatments, since some dangerous flaw can surprise patients out of nowhere. The medical world is full of stories of malpractice, orthogonal to the safety/efficacy of individual medicines. So it is totally understandable for people to sound the alarm and warn others. I also want to point out that there are various legitimate stories or issues for people to view vaccines with speculation/distrust: 1. Experimental vaccines administered in unsanctioned trials (2018: https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/recipients-of-experimental-herpes-vaccine-file-lawsuit-29953 https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/recipients-of-exp...) 2. WHO and FDA approve controversial vaccine despite serious safety issues, and then eventually reverse approval (2019: https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2019/05/03/719037789/botched-vaccine-launch-has-deadly-repercussions https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2019/05/03/7190377...) 3. Note that even tenured vaccines do have a non-zero risk rate. See safety data at https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/vaccines/mmr-vaccine.html https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/vaccines/mmr-vaccine.html for the MMR vaccine specifically. Talking about those issues openly and with precision (characterizing risks/tradeoffs transparently) is an important part of building public trust, getting things right, holding various parties accountable, and ultimately avoiding epidemics.