4 ms·
I think you have it backwards. Nobody needs evidence to doubt a claim, the burden of proof is on the claimant. There is a wide divide between doubt and "spreadi
by errantmind 5y ago
I think you have it backwards. Nobody needs evidence to doubt a claim, the burden of proof is on the claimant. There is a wide divide between doubt and "spreading dangerous lies".
- kstenerud 5y agoI have it exactly right. This is a public health issue at the core, which means that some speech must be suppressed in order to protect the population. If you claimed that the world is flat (regardless of whether you actually believe it or not), most people would rightly dismiss you as a crank, but some people would believe you and be deceived. Still, there's no real harm in believing it so that's fine. Spreading doubts or false claims about health issues changes things, because your words can now have a deleterious effect on those gullible enough to fall for them (case in point: COVID-19). Society protects these people by silencing your speech.
- errantmind 5y agoGuess I'm happy to live in a free country then. You won't be suppressing my speech about any particular issue. To reply: I said 'you' won't be suppressing my speech. You are powerless. Second, within the context of the discussion, I will form whatever opinions I desire and share them with whomever I want.
- kstenerud 5y agoOh really? So your free country allows you to slander someone? Your free country allows you to yell "Fire!" in a theatre without repercussions? Your free country allows you to lie about your product in advertisements? Your free country doesn't force you to list all ingredients truthfully on food products? Your free country allows you to lie when giving testimony in court? Your free country allows hate speech? Your free country doesn't have laws prohibiting incitement to violence?