3 ms·

> It's unconstitutional to make a law about what you can and can't say on the Internet I don't think that's true. In fact there are various categories of spee

> It's unconstitutional to make a law about what you can and can't say on the Internet I don't think that's true. In fact there are various categories of speech that aren't protected and the category of false medical claims appears to be in a grey area.

pfdietz 7y ago
The limitations on the first amendment are very strictly defined, and anti-vax would not fall under any of them.
- cookie_monsta 7y ago
  Not a lawyer, but the right to incite actions that would harm others has been off the table for over 100 years. I'd imagine you could build an interesting case around that one.
  - jrockway 7y ago
    Inciting imminent lawless action is something like "lynch him!", not "after a careful reading of many studies, I believe that vaccines cause autism". Look, I don't want to defend these people, but any limitations on the first amendment are not what's going to bring this movement to an end.
    - cookie_monsta 7y ago
      It's not the lawless action exception that I'm talking about, it's the harm to others one. The classic example is yelling "fire" in a crowded building which I think has its parallels to yelling "autism" in response to vaccines. Interestingly, the precedent-setting case was with a guy distributing pamphlets persuading people not to enlist for WW1 which doesn't seem remotely close to any of these scenarios. The real reason why it's a moot point, though, is that no government would have the political will to legislate on something as divisive as this.
      - pfdietz 7y ago
        That classic case is no longer good law. Consider the 1960s anti-war movement.
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
  - pfdietz 7y ago
    No, you could not. Not even close. https://www.popehat.com/2015/05/19/how-to-spot-and-critique-censorship-tropes-in-the-medias-coverage-of-free-speech-controversies/ https://www.popehat.com/2015/05/19/how-to-spot-and-critique-...

pfdietz 7y ago

The limitations on the first amendment are very strictly defined, and anti-vax would not fall under any of them.

cookie_monsta 7y ago
Not a lawyer, but the right to incite actions that would harm others has been off the table for over 100 years. I'd imagine you could build an interesting case around that one.
- jrockway 7y ago
  Inciting imminent lawless action is something like "lynch him!", not "after a careful reading of many studies, I believe that vaccines cause autism". Look, I don't want to defend these people, but any limitations on the first amendment are not what's going to bring this movement to an end.
  - cookie_monsta 7y ago
    It's not the lawless action exception that I'm talking about, it's the harm to others one. The classic example is yelling "fire" in a crowded building which I think has its parallels to yelling "autism" in response to vaccines. Interestingly, the precedent-setting case was with a guy distributing pamphlets persuading people not to enlist for WW1 which doesn't seem remotely close to any of these scenarios. The real reason why it's a moot point, though, is that no government would have the political will to legislate on something as divisive as this.
    - pfdietz 7y ago
      That classic case is no longer good law. Consider the 1960s anti-war movement.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
- pfdietz 7y ago
  No, you could not. Not even close. https://www.popehat.com/2015/05/19/how-to-spot-and-critique-censorship-tropes-in-the-medias-coverage-of-free-speech-controversies/ https://www.popehat.com/2015/05/19/how-to-spot-and-critique-...