3 ms·

The post that got her suspended claimed “extremely high amounts of Covid vaccine deaths.” per the NYT article. I was unable to find a screenshot of the original

The post that got her suspended claimed “extremely high amounts of Covid vaccine deaths.” per the NYT article. I was unable to find a screenshot of the original tweet, seems to have been deleted. A cursory look at the raw VAERS data from the CDC[1] shows: Reports of adverse events to VAERS following vaccination, including deaths, do not necessarily mean that a vaccine caused a health problem. (...) During this time, VAERS received 10,688 reports of death (0.0022%) among people who received a COVID-19 vaccine. CDC and FDA clinicians review reports of death to VAERS including death certificates, autopsy, and medical records. In contrast, the CDC[2] estimates that 817k people have died of Covid-19 in the US which puts the mortality at 248 deaths per 100k individuals. Currently, an unvaccinated individual has 20x the risk of dying from Covid-19 than someone with a booster. I am no first amendment scholar, but spreading lies that increase people rate of mortality by 20x seems pretty close to the "shouting fire in a crowded theater" exception to protected speech. That puts aside the fact that Twitter is a private platform, thus first amendment laws do not apply. [1] https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety/adverse-events.html https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety/ad... [2] https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/covid19/mortality-overview.htm https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/covid19/mortality-overview.htm

rpdillon 5y ago
I agree with the thrust of what you're saying, but wanted to nitpick a bit to point out that there is no 'fire in a crowded theater' exemption to protected speech. Your point that not all speech is protected is, of course, correct. https://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-hackneyed-apologia-for-censorship-are-enough/ https://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-ha...
- aDfbrtVt 5y ago
  Thanks for the link, it is always a pleasure to learn from Ken White. The right to free speech (fortunately) seems to have evolved significantly since World War I! It would appear that the modern test to determine first amendment exemption is Incitement to Imminent Lawless Action and was established in Brandenburg v. Ohio in 1969 [1][2]. * Advocacy of force or criminal activity does not receive First Amendment protections if (1) the advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action, and (2) is likely to incite or produce such action. * From that quote, I think it is pretty clear that the posts from Marjorie Greene would not pass the test and are thus eligible for first amendment protection (if Twitter was a government entity). Caveat: Not an American, just a curious neighbour to the north. [1] https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/970/incitement-to-imminent-lawless-action https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/970/incitement-to-i... [2] https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/189/brandenburg-v-ohio https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/189/brandenburg-v-o...
jacquesm 5y ago
And that's before you get into VAERS being raw data, not processed data and that the numbers reported by VAERS are going to be higher than the real ones.

rpdillon 5y ago

I agree with the thrust of what you're saying, but wanted to nitpick a bit to point out that there is no 'fire in a crowded theater' exemption to protected speech. Your point that not all speech is protected is, of course, correct. https://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-hackneyed-apologia-for-censorship-are-enough/ https://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-ha...

aDfbrtVt 5y ago
Thanks for the link, it is always a pleasure to learn from Ken White. The right to free speech (fortunately) seems to have evolved significantly since World War I! It would appear that the modern test to determine first amendment exemption is Incitement to Imminent Lawless Action and was established in Brandenburg v. Ohio in 1969 [1][2]. * Advocacy of force or criminal activity does not receive First Amendment protections if (1) the advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action, and (2) is likely to incite or produce such action. * From that quote, I think it is pretty clear that the posts from Marjorie Greene would not pass the test and are thus eligible for first amendment protection (if Twitter was a government entity). Caveat: Not an American, just a curious neighbour to the north. [1] https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/970/incitement-to-imminent-lawless-action https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/970/incitement-to-i... [2] https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/189/brandenburg-v-ohio https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/189/brandenburg-v-o...

jacquesm 5y ago

And that's before you get into VAERS being raw data, not processed data and that the numbers reported by VAERS are going to be higher than the real ones.