2 ms·

And who defines what is false? Medical history is replete with examples of "settled science" that turned out to be sub-optimal. Leaches aside, how true and fals

by mikece 5y ago

And who defines what is false? Medical history is replete with examples of "settled science" that turned out to be sub-optimal. Leaches aside, how true and false is decided is not an area for government legislation or administrative provision to be adjudicating.

galaxyLogic 5y ago
It is illegal to shout "Fire" in a crowded theatre. Why? Because it is common sense that it is dangerous, can cause lives to be lost. Similarly shouting "Pandemic is a hoax" should be illegal. But then who determines whether shouting that really is dangerous or not? Is anybody's guess as good as anybody else's? Can we all make our own decision? No. The courts decide. And courts listen to experts and scientists. You say "how true and false is decided is not an area for government legislation or administrative provision to be adjudicating" That is right. It is a not the government who decides, it is the courts, applying laws set up by the democratically elected legislature, and listening to the opinion of credited respected experts.
- corinroyal 5y ago
  Thank you for your sober and correct response. I've gotten used to the fringe hysterics on YC.
- 1680168l 5y ago
  Anti-free speech trash. The law against shouting "Fire" in a crowded theater is stupid and ineffective.
- tehwebguy 5y ago
  > It is illegal to shout "Fire" in a crowded theatre. Why? Because it is common sense that it is dangerous, can cause lives to be lost. Actually it's not, but it's a super common misunderstanding and I'd guess that most people familiar with the phrase believes it is, unfortunately. From Wikipedia: > The case was later partially overturned by Brandenburg v. Ohio in 1969, which limited the scope of banned speech to that which would be directed to and likely to incite imminent lawless action (e.g. a riot). It's not that there are no constitutionally bannable types of speech, it's just that yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre isn't one of them. I don't know if this ruling affected individuals' ability to sue charlatans for damages arising from believing their lies (e.g. "there is no virus" or "the vaccine is actually more dangerous") but I'm guessing there's a really high threshold to cross.

by mikece 5y ago

galaxyLogic 5y ago

It is illegal to shout "Fire" in a crowded theatre. Why? Because it is common sense that it is dangerous, can cause lives to be lost. Similarly shouting "Pandemic is a hoax" should be illegal. But then who determines whether shouting that really is dangerous or not? Is anybody's guess as good as anybody else's? Can we all make our own decision? No. The courts decide. And courts listen to experts and scientists. You say "how true and false is decided is not an area for government legislation or administrative provision to be adjudicating" That is right. It is a not the government who decides, it is the courts, applying laws set up by the democratically elected legislature, and listening to the opinion of credited respected experts.

corinroyal 5y ago
Thank you for your sober and correct response. I've gotten used to the fringe hysterics on YC.
1680168l 5y ago
Anti-free speech trash. The law against shouting "Fire" in a crowded theater is stupid and ineffective.
tehwebguy 5y ago
> It is illegal to shout "Fire" in a crowded theatre. Why? Because it is common sense that it is dangerous, can cause lives to be lost. Actually it's not, but it's a super common misunderstanding and I'd guess that most people familiar with the phrase believes it is, unfortunately. From Wikipedia: > The case was later partially overturned by Brandenburg v. Ohio in 1969, which limited the scope of banned speech to that which would be directed to and likely to incite imminent lawless action (e.g. a riot). It's not that there are no constitutionally bannable types of speech, it's just that yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre isn't one of them. I don't know if this ruling affected individuals' ability to sue charlatans for damages arising from believing their lies (e.g. "there is no virus" or "the vaccine is actually more dangerous") but I'm guessing there's a really high threshold to cross.