5 ms·

The first amendment has judicial precedent for not yelling “fire” in a crowded theater. Most vaccines require mass public uptake in order to work.

anon291 4y ago
This is explicitly political speech. Can the government ban it? Mocking politicians and bureaucrats and calling their decisions into question is an absolute, inalienable right
UIUC_06 4y ago
Maybe you all could stop with that tired old "fire in a crowded theater" trope. This isn't that. This is scientific debate.
anonym29 4y ago
But Fauci said that "all 3 vaccines are 100 per cent effective against death and hospitalization" according to a blue checkmark news outlet.[0] Was Fauci wrong or are you wrong? [0]: https://twitter.com/independent/status/1366125427144732672?lang=en https://twitter.com/independent/status/1366125427144732672?l...
- yamtaddle 4y ago
  The story that links to: > The varying ‘effectiveness’ rates miss the most important point: The vaccines were all 100 per cent effective in the vaccine trials in stopping hospitalisations and death. Only mention of that "100 percent" in it. Is that wrong? Were there hospitalizations or deaths among the vaccinated in the vaccine trials? Agreed the headline sucks, but reporting in general is terrible so that's no surprise. [EDIT] Oh there's also: > The numbers Americans should be emphasising are that all three vaccines have proven 100 per cent effective at preventing deaths. The risk of hospitalisation also plummets to virtually zero for people who receive the vaccine. But the article's so chopped-up and shitty that it's hard to tell what the context of this was. Probably similar to the other quote above.
  - anonym29 4y ago
    That's a fair criticism of my point. But you bring up a great point of your own as well - it may be journalists who are chiefly responsible for the growing distrust for the medical establishment. The same journalists who eagerly proclaim any finding from any single study == "The Science", when we all know that in reality, one study does not science make. The "replication crisis" is a feature of science, not a bug. Maybe those concerned with misinformation and the decline of public trust in institutions should be a lot more interested in the behaviors of journalists.
int_19h 4y ago
Do you know what that judicial precedent actually was? That quote about "yelling fire in a crowded theater" is from Schenck v. United States, a Supreme Court decision that affirmed the conviction of person who was distributing flyers against the draft during WW1. So, it basically came with a slippery slope pre-assembled and deployed. But the good news is that it's not active precedent, since it has been superceded by Brandenburg v. Ohio, which defines the threshold as "imminent lawless action". Thus, anti-vax sentiment is protected by 1A, except for any specific utterances that can be conclusively demonstrated to have influenced people to not only not vaccinate, but to do so in violation of the law. (FWIW I'm pro-vaccine myself and think that anti-vax is stupid and harmful. That doesn't mean that they don't deserve the same rights we all do.)

anon291 4y ago

This is explicitly political speech. Can the government ban it? Mocking politicians and bureaucrats and calling their decisions into question is an absolute, inalienable right

UIUC_06 4y ago

Maybe you all could stop with that tired old "fire in a crowded theater" trope. This isn't that. This is scientific debate.

anonym29 4y ago

But Fauci said that "all 3 vaccines are 100 per cent effective against death and hospitalization" according to a blue checkmark news outlet.[0] Was Fauci wrong or are you wrong? [0]: https://twitter.com/independent/status/1366125427144732672?lang=en https://twitter.com/independent/status/1366125427144732672?l...

yamtaddle 4y ago
The story that links to: > The varying ‘effectiveness’ rates miss the most important point: The vaccines were all 100 per cent effective in the vaccine trials in stopping hospitalisations and death. Only mention of that "100 percent" in it. Is that wrong? Were there hospitalizations or deaths among the vaccinated in the vaccine trials? Agreed the headline sucks, but reporting in general is terrible so that's no surprise. [EDIT] Oh there's also: > The numbers Americans should be emphasising are that all three vaccines have proven 100 per cent effective at preventing deaths. The risk of hospitalisation also plummets to virtually zero for people who receive the vaccine. But the article's so chopped-up and shitty that it's hard to tell what the context of this was. Probably similar to the other quote above.
- anonym29 4y ago
  That's a fair criticism of my point. But you bring up a great point of your own as well - it may be journalists who are chiefly responsible for the growing distrust for the medical establishment. The same journalists who eagerly proclaim any finding from any single study == "The Science", when we all know that in reality, one study does not science make. The "replication crisis" is a feature of science, not a bug. Maybe those concerned with misinformation and the decline of public trust in institutions should be a lot more interested in the behaviors of journalists.

int_19h 4y ago

Do you know what that judicial precedent actually was? That quote about "yelling fire in a crowded theater" is from Schenck v. United States, a Supreme Court decision that affirmed the conviction of person who was distributing flyers against the draft during WW1. So, it basically came with a slippery slope pre-assembled and deployed. But the good news is that it's not active precedent, since it has been superceded by Brandenburg v. Ohio, which defines the threshold as "imminent lawless action". Thus, anti-vax sentiment is protected by 1A, except for any specific utterances that can be conclusively demonstrated to have influenced people to not only not vaccinate, but to do so in violation of the law. (FWIW I'm pro-vaccine myself and think that anti-vax is stupid and harmful. That doesn't mean that they don't deserve the same rights we all do.)