19 ms·

I see a lot of people critical of Turkey... and I agree. But the US is not too far away. See AB-2098 in California just signed by governor / likely presidential

by ccn0p 4y ago

I see a lot of people critical of Turkey... and I agree. But the US is not too far away. See AB-2098 in California just signed by governor / likely presidential nominee Gavin Newson [1] which basically gives the state the ability to revoke medical licenses for spreading "false information that is contradicted by contemporary scientific contrary to the standard of care" (in other words, go against the CDC or other state-funded agencies, get punished by the state). [1] https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220AB2098 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtm...

CodeSgt 4y ago
Yeah, this is especially an issue as certain forms of medical care gets politicized. If a doctor is obviously telling people that cigarettes are healthy and alcohol abuse if the key to a long life then of course they probably should have their license revoked. If a doctor isn't certain of the literature or has moral objections to prescribing hormones to trans teenagers, well that one is up for debate. Similarly see Alex Jones, I disagree entirely with his politics and virtually everything he's ever said, but ultimately he was just fined approximately $1 billion USD for no more than speaking. Honestly seeing that happen to a private entity is more concerning than it happening to a demographic that already requires government approval to legally operate (medical professional, in this case).
- lesuorac 4y ago
  Alex Jones isn't the story you think it is. There are procedures to follow in a lawsuit such as discovery. If you intentionally do not follow them then you get in trouble. He may have been able to muster a "I only said things"/ free speech defense if he actually was trying to defend himself in court. Instead he didn't participate in the lawsuit and the other party that did is assumed to be correct. > [1] In both the Texas and Connecticut lawsuits, judges found the company liable for damages by default after Jones failed to cooperate with court rules on sharing evidence, including failing to turn over records that might have showed whether Infowars had profited from knowingly spreading misinformation about mass killings. > Because he was already found liable, Jones was barred from mentioning free speech rights and other topics during his testimony. [1]: https://apnews.com/article/shootings-school-connecticut-conspiracy-alex-jones-3f579380515fdd6eb59f5bf0e3e1c08f https://apnews.com/article/shootings-school-connecticut-cons...
  - CodeSgt 4y ago
    Maybe I'm missing something, but I'm not sure if I see how this changes the fundamental nature of the lawsuit. "Spreading disinformation", whether you profit from it or not, is really just "Speaking your incorrect opinion out loud" in a more negative light. The basis of the lawsuit was "This man said things that made me upset". And yeah, they were rightfully upset, but it's something that I think any court in a country that values freedom would throw out in a heart beat.
    - EMIRELADERO 4y ago
      Are you arguing against the entire legal concept of libel/defamation?
      - rayiner 4y ago
        When I was in law school, in the before times, libel and defamation were treated as a holdover from British common law. We learned how they had been winnowed down in the long “arc of justice,” starting with the Zenger trial in 1735. This trend of weakening libel and defamation laws, and any constraints on speech, was treated as uniformly positive.
        AnimalMuppet 4y ago
        Weakening... but not down to nothing. It's a lot harder to be found guilty of libel in the US than in the UK, and that's a good thing. You still can be, though, and that is also a good thing. ("Guilty" may be the wrong word, because it's not a criminal offense, but I'm not sure what the right one is here.)
        skissane 4y ago
        > ("Guilty" may be the wrong word, because it's not a criminal offense, but I'm not sure what the right one is here.) Defamation is a crime in many jurisdictions, including the US (not federally, but in over 20 states). Prosecutions and convictions are rare-but not non-existent. At least in the US, punishments are light (Wikipedia cites a study saying that the average custodial sentence for criminal libel in the US is just under six months). In free countries, prosecutions are generally reserved for particularly egregious cases (e.g. suppose A does some trivial thing to offend B, so as payback B plasters posters all over town accusing A of sex crimes, with the allegation being completely invented). Given this, the vast majority of defamation cases are civil not criminal.
- BuyMyBitcoins 4y ago
  The whole situation with Alex Jones has undermined the confidence I have with our court system and our government. Initially I thought there was some Mandela Effect going on because I could have sworn I remembered Alex Jones losing a Sandy Hook civil suit case multiple times before. Turns out, he’s being sued multiple times by different sets of parents and from what I understand, this latest case isn’t the last one. Regardless of how justified this feels, I nevertheless worry that using the civil court system in this manner sets a dangerous precedent. Firstly, because this is a civil matter and not a criminal one, there is no protection against double jeopardy. He can keep getting sued over and over for the same thing. Indeed, it really looks like these parents/their attorneys are out to destroy Alex Jones through lawsuit after lawsuit. Second, fining someone a billion dollars is just ludicrous. Yes, I know he is not worth that much and will ultimately end up paying far less. But the mere idea that such a large fine was issued undermines confidence that the restitution is in any way reasonable. Not just because the number is so detached from reality, but because such sums look like the financial equivalent of the death penalty. I am very worried about how civil suits can be used to go after people. To me at least, there need to be additional protections along the lines of what we have in the Eighth Amendment. What I’m seeing with these Sandy Hook cases feels like cruel and unusual punishment. Also keep in mind that you do not have a right to an attorney in suits like these and you have to pay out of pocket. It is not unreasonable to think lawfare like this will be used against other people in the future.
  - rlpb 4y ago
    > Firstly, because this is a civil matter and not a criminal one, there is no protection against double jeopardy. He can keep getting sued over and over for the same thing. Not by the same people, though. If he damaged ten people, he might owe damages to each of those ten people. That doesn't sound like a problem to me. > Second, fining someone a billion dollars is just ludicrous. It seems like your argument is that the sum is simply too large, and that the specifics of the case are irrelevant. This seems dangerous to me. If someone does actually cause that amount of damage, why should they not be civilly liable? Surely it depends on the specifics of the case to determine if they did cause that much damage or not? Otherwise, does everyone just get to cause as much damage as they like but have a cap on what they are held responsible for? That doesn't seem right to me. If someone wants to get involved in a course of conduct which can cause terrible damages to others, then they should also be responsible for that.
- jhauris 4y ago
  I almost choked when I saw the headline with that judgement, and I haven't looked into it, but I suspect part of the reason it went so high is because he and his lawyers got caught withholding evidence in discovery and perjurying themselves. My optimistic belief is the high judgement was due to those extra factors, but maybe a lawyer can correct me.
  - ncmncm 4y ago
    You charge enough to discourage the behavior. Evidently, a smaller amount did not suffice.
    - CodeSgt 4y ago
      Yes. Don't say things that the public disagrees with. Don't question what you're told. That's the lesson. Of course I think the Sandy Hook shooting was real, but if someone said it wasn't I'd just think they're an idiot - not a criminal that should be tried in any court.
      - jhauris 4y ago
        He wasn't tried as a criminal. This was a civil case between private individuals, under defamation laws. Withholding evidence and perjury, however, are actual crimes.
- pjc50 4y ago
  He wasn't fined, he was held civilly liable for damages. Perhaps the problem is that the fine accrues only to him and his production company; really there were a lot of people involved in spreading lies about Sandy Hook, and their production and distribution. Or that US lawsuits can produce spectacular punitive damages numbers on flimsy justification. But winning libel suits is really unusual in the US! Here's Sarah Palin losing a lawsuit this year: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-60396231 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-60396231
  - CodeSgt 4y ago
    It amount to the same thing when those "damages" are largely unquantifiable, and the quantifiable financial costs that were incurred by the families as a consequence (security, moving, etc) certainly couldn't have topped $10m, and were likely much, much less than that.
lesuorac 4y ago
If you don't want to be beholden to the state then don't get a state enforced license. > 270. (a) It shall constitute unprofessional conduct for a physician and surgeon to disseminate misinformation or disinformation related to COVID-19, including false or misleading information regarding the nature and risks of the virus, its prevention and treatment; and the development, safety, and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines. > (3) “Disseminate” means the conveyance of information from the licensee to a patient under the licensee’s care in the form of treatment or advice. This only applies to a Doctor advising their patients. If you don't think professional conduct means accurately representing a course of treatment and it's risk I don't know what to say to you. Sure, there could be a slippery slope to where disseminate doesn't mean only between a Licensee but that was always true.
- jsnk 4y ago
  Your take is: "You got a state license, so you should accept whatever the government decides to do with state license." Let that sink in.
  - lesuorac 4y ago
    No, my take is that you should manage your risk. If you don't want the risk of the state changing its rules don't tie your employment to that state. My second point is that professionals should already accurately tell the truth to their patients.
    - AnimalMuppet 4y ago
      The truth, or what the state decides is the truth? Those are not always the same thing.
      - lesuorac 4y ago
        Sure. Professionals should be sticking to positive statements [1] though. So saying something like, the covid vaccine will give you austim I think should be grounds for losing your license. On the other hand, saying something like, there's a high change you'll have flu like symptoms if you get the vaccine would not be grounds (the symptoms are disclosed as part of the vaccine trials). But saying something like, I would like to try X treatment that isn't typically done but I've done it a few times recently and had good results I think should also be fine. The law makes the claim of "contemporary scientific consensus contrary to the standard of care" which I think is a very reasonable statement. In general, you want people to recommend treatments that historically have worked for a condition. And for experimental type situations all the Licensee needs to do is to make it clear that the treatment isn't backed up by existing studies. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_statement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_statement
barbariangrunge 4y ago
The question is how we can keep our own countries from going down similar routes? With tech being what it is, it will become harder and harder to resist the state over time, so we will need better and better ways of keeping our houses in order so that things will not “decay,” to use a slightly classical term With ai and surveillance / mass-manipulation tech, it will be extremely hard to come back from authoritarianism soon.
- cr4nberry 4y ago
  The authoritarianism won't come from the government, it will come from the people around you. It's honestly terrifying how fast the media whipped up the craziness a year or two ago. It makes me wonder how much harder they shilled to shame people into the military during wartime. I remember reading Céline's Journey to the End of the Night and getting disgusted at how the state and media managed to screw that many people into literal suicide. It reminded me of how the Aztecs normalized human sacrifice to the point where people actually wanted to be sacrificed. There's something inherently violent about mass society The next time the people around me suddenly start insisting on the same idea and foaming at the mouth, I'm dropping everything and moving somewhere where mass psychosis isn't the norm The only thing keeping our society from totalitarianism is a benevolent media that's decided it isn't time yet. If they fire on all cylinders again and for a long enough period it's entirely possible
  - orwin 4y ago
    > The authoritarianism won't come from the government, it will come from the people around you. Exactly. If it wasn't for those cop shows, the government would be more critical of them. Media and pop culture seems to be the driver for any societal change. Even for Covid vaccine obligation the idea came from the media first (i'm not antivax or anything, i am also pro vaccinal obligation for public schools to be clear, i'm not even against mRNA vaccine, it is just that i understand that people can be shy to test brand new vaccines). I am forever wary of any mass media privately owned.
    - cr4nberry 4y ago
halfjoking 4y ago
The CDC officials are the ones who should lose their jobs for misinformation, not the doctors who recognize the widespread corruption of the industry. Many examples of why are in this article: https://pierrekory.substack.com/p/californias-misinformation-epidemic https://pierrekory.substack.com/p/californias-misinformation...
lotsofpulp 4y ago
Yet California allows religious exemptions for vaccines. I wonder what “contemporary scientific consensus“ that falls under. For the record, I think non medical exemptions for mandatory vaccines are nonsense.
- Jcowell 4y ago
  Sure but it doesn’t make sense to fight a battle that you’re going to lose. No one is dumb enough to jeopardize a political career for a losing battle.
- ccn0p 4y ago
  Are you sure about that? https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160SB277 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml...
seydor 4y ago
still better than going to prison
- sieabahlpark 4y ago

by ccn0p 4y ago

CodeSgt 4y ago

Yeah, this is especially an issue as certain forms of medical care gets politicized. If a doctor is obviously telling people that cigarettes are healthy and alcohol abuse if the key to a long life then of course they probably should have their license revoked. If a doctor isn't certain of the literature or has moral objections to prescribing hormones to trans teenagers, well that one is up for debate. Similarly see Alex Jones, I disagree entirely with his politics and virtually everything he's ever said, but ultimately he was just fined approximately $1 billion USD for no more than speaking. Honestly seeing that happen to a private entity is more concerning than it happening to a demographic that already requires government approval to legally operate (medical professional, in this case).

lesuorac 4y ago
Alex Jones isn't the story you think it is. There are procedures to follow in a lawsuit such as discovery. If you intentionally do not follow them then you get in trouble. He may have been able to muster a "I only said things"/ free speech defense if he actually was trying to defend himself in court. Instead he didn't participate in the lawsuit and the other party that did is assumed to be correct. > [1] In both the Texas and Connecticut lawsuits, judges found the company liable for damages by default after Jones failed to cooperate with court rules on sharing evidence, including failing to turn over records that might have showed whether Infowars had profited from knowingly spreading misinformation about mass killings. > Because he was already found liable, Jones was barred from mentioning free speech rights and other topics during his testimony. [1]: https://apnews.com/article/shootings-school-connecticut-conspiracy-alex-jones-3f579380515fdd6eb59f5bf0e3e1c08f https://apnews.com/article/shootings-school-connecticut-cons...
- CodeSgt 4y ago
  Maybe I'm missing something, but I'm not sure if I see how this changes the fundamental nature of the lawsuit. "Spreading disinformation", whether you profit from it or not, is really just "Speaking your incorrect opinion out loud" in a more negative light. The basis of the lawsuit was "This man said things that made me upset". And yeah, they were rightfully upset, but it's something that I think any court in a country that values freedom would throw out in a heart beat.
  - EMIRELADERO 4y ago
    Are you arguing against the entire legal concept of libel/defamation?
    - rayiner 4y ago
      When I was in law school, in the before times, libel and defamation were treated as a holdover from British common law. We learned how they had been winnowed down in the long “arc of justice,” starting with the Zenger trial in 1735. This trend of weakening libel and defamation laws, and any constraints on speech, was treated as uniformly positive.
      - AnimalMuppet 4y ago
        Weakening... but not down to nothing. It's a lot harder to be found guilty of libel in the US than in the UK, and that's a good thing. You still can be, though, and that is also a good thing. ("Guilty" may be the wrong word, because it's not a criminal offense, but I'm not sure what the right one is here.)
        skissane 4y ago
        > ("Guilty" may be the wrong word, because it's not a criminal offense, but I'm not sure what the right one is here.) Defamation is a crime in many jurisdictions, including the US (not federally, but in over 20 states). Prosecutions and convictions are rare-but not non-existent. At least in the US, punishments are light (Wikipedia cites a study saying that the average custodial sentence for criminal libel in the US is just under six months). In free countries, prosecutions are generally reserved for particularly egregious cases (e.g. suppose A does some trivial thing to offend B, so as payback B plasters posters all over town accusing A of sex crimes, with the allegation being completely invented). Given this, the vast majority of defamation cases are civil not criminal.
BuyMyBitcoins 4y ago
The whole situation with Alex Jones has undermined the confidence I have with our court system and our government. Initially I thought there was some Mandela Effect going on because I could have sworn I remembered Alex Jones losing a Sandy Hook civil suit case multiple times before. Turns out, he’s being sued multiple times by different sets of parents and from what I understand, this latest case isn’t the last one. Regardless of how justified this feels, I nevertheless worry that using the civil court system in this manner sets a dangerous precedent. Firstly, because this is a civil matter and not a criminal one, there is no protection against double jeopardy. He can keep getting sued over and over for the same thing. Indeed, it really looks like these parents/their attorneys are out to destroy Alex Jones through lawsuit after lawsuit. Second, fining someone a billion dollars is just ludicrous. Yes, I know he is not worth that much and will ultimately end up paying far less. But the mere idea that such a large fine was issued undermines confidence that the restitution is in any way reasonable. Not just because the number is so detached from reality, but because such sums look like the financial equivalent of the death penalty. I am very worried about how civil suits can be used to go after people. To me at least, there need to be additional protections along the lines of what we have in the Eighth Amendment. What I’m seeing with these Sandy Hook cases feels like cruel and unusual punishment. Also keep in mind that you do not have a right to an attorney in suits like these and you have to pay out of pocket. It is not unreasonable to think lawfare like this will be used against other people in the future.
- rlpb 4y ago
  > Firstly, because this is a civil matter and not a criminal one, there is no protection against double jeopardy. He can keep getting sued over and over for the same thing. Not by the same people, though. If he damaged ten people, he might owe damages to each of those ten people. That doesn't sound like a problem to me. > Second, fining someone a billion dollars is just ludicrous. It seems like your argument is that the sum is simply too large, and that the specifics of the case are irrelevant. This seems dangerous to me. If someone does actually cause that amount of damage, why should they not be civilly liable? Surely it depends on the specifics of the case to determine if they did cause that much damage or not? Otherwise, does everyone just get to cause as much damage as they like but have a cap on what they are held responsible for? That doesn't seem right to me. If someone wants to get involved in a course of conduct which can cause terrible damages to others, then they should also be responsible for that.
jhauris 4y ago
I almost choked when I saw the headline with that judgement, and I haven't looked into it, but I suspect part of the reason it went so high is because he and his lawyers got caught withholding evidence in discovery and perjurying themselves. My optimistic belief is the high judgement was due to those extra factors, but maybe a lawyer can correct me.
- ncmncm 4y ago
  You charge enough to discourage the behavior. Evidently, a smaller amount did not suffice.
  - CodeSgt 4y ago
    Yes. Don't say things that the public disagrees with. Don't question what you're told. That's the lesson. Of course I think the Sandy Hook shooting was real, but if someone said it wasn't I'd just think they're an idiot - not a criminal that should be tried in any court.
    - jhauris 4y ago
      He wasn't tried as a criminal. This was a civil case between private individuals, under defamation laws. Withholding evidence and perjury, however, are actual crimes.
pjc50 4y ago
He wasn't fined, he was held civilly liable for damages. Perhaps the problem is that the fine accrues only to him and his production company; really there were a lot of people involved in spreading lies about Sandy Hook, and their production and distribution. Or that US lawsuits can produce spectacular punitive damages numbers on flimsy justification. But winning libel suits is really unusual in the US! Here's Sarah Palin losing a lawsuit this year: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-60396231 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-60396231
- CodeSgt 4y ago
  It amount to the same thing when those "damages" are largely unquantifiable, and the quantifiable financial costs that were incurred by the families as a consequence (security, moving, etc) certainly couldn't have topped $10m, and were likely much, much less than that.

lesuorac 4y ago

If you don't want to be beholden to the state then don't get a state enforced license. > 270. (a) It shall constitute unprofessional conduct for a physician and surgeon to disseminate misinformation or disinformation related to COVID-19, including false or misleading information regarding the nature and risks of the virus, its prevention and treatment; and the development, safety, and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines. > (3) “Disseminate” means the conveyance of information from the licensee to a patient under the licensee’s care in the form of treatment or advice. This only applies to a Doctor advising their patients. If you don't think professional conduct means accurately representing a course of treatment and it's risk I don't know what to say to you. Sure, there could be a slippery slope to where disseminate doesn't mean only between a Licensee but that was always true.

jsnk 4y ago
Your take is: "You got a state license, so you should accept whatever the government decides to do with state license." Let that sink in.
- lesuorac 4y ago
  No, my take is that you should manage your risk. If you don't want the risk of the state changing its rules don't tie your employment to that state. My second point is that professionals should already accurately tell the truth to their patients.
  - AnimalMuppet 4y ago
    The truth, or what the state decides is the truth? Those are not always the same thing.
    - lesuorac 4y ago
      Sure. Professionals should be sticking to positive statements [1] though. So saying something like, the covid vaccine will give you austim I think should be grounds for losing your license. On the other hand, saying something like, there's a high change you'll have flu like symptoms if you get the vaccine would not be grounds (the symptoms are disclosed as part of the vaccine trials). But saying something like, I would like to try X treatment that isn't typically done but I've done it a few times recently and had good results I think should also be fine. The law makes the claim of "contemporary scientific consensus contrary to the standard of care" which I think is a very reasonable statement. In general, you want people to recommend treatments that historically have worked for a condition. And for experimental type situations all the Licensee needs to do is to make it clear that the treatment isn't backed up by existing studies. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_statement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_statement

barbariangrunge 4y ago

The question is how we can keep our own countries from going down similar routes? With tech being what it is, it will become harder and harder to resist the state over time, so we will need better and better ways of keeping our houses in order so that things will not “decay,” to use a slightly classical term With ai and surveillance / mass-manipulation tech, it will be extremely hard to come back from authoritarianism soon.

cr4nberry 4y ago
The authoritarianism won't come from the government, it will come from the people around you. It's honestly terrifying how fast the media whipped up the craziness a year or two ago. It makes me wonder how much harder they shilled to shame people into the military during wartime. I remember reading Céline's Journey to the End of the Night and getting disgusted at how the state and media managed to screw that many people into literal suicide. It reminded me of how the Aztecs normalized human sacrifice to the point where people actually wanted to be sacrificed. There's something inherently violent about mass society The next time the people around me suddenly start insisting on the same idea and foaming at the mouth, I'm dropping everything and moving somewhere where mass psychosis isn't the norm The only thing keeping our society from totalitarianism is a benevolent media that's decided it isn't time yet. If they fire on all cylinders again and for a long enough period it's entirely possible
- orwin 4y ago
  > The authoritarianism won't come from the government, it will come from the people around you. Exactly. If it wasn't for those cop shows, the government would be more critical of them. Media and pop culture seems to be the driver for any societal change. Even for Covid vaccine obligation the idea came from the media first (i'm not antivax or anything, i am also pro vaccinal obligation for public schools to be clear, i'm not even against mRNA vaccine, it is just that i understand that people can be shy to test brand new vaccines). I am forever wary of any mass media privately owned.
  - cr4nberry 4y ago

halfjoking 4y ago

The CDC officials are the ones who should lose their jobs for misinformation, not the doctors who recognize the widespread corruption of the industry. Many examples of why are in this article: https://pierrekory.substack.com/p/californias-misinformation-epidemic https://pierrekory.substack.com/p/californias-misinformation...

lotsofpulp 4y ago

Yet California allows religious exemptions for vaccines. I wonder what “contemporary scientific consensus“ that falls under. For the record, I think non medical exemptions for mandatory vaccines are nonsense.

Jcowell 4y ago
Sure but it doesn’t make sense to fight a battle that you’re going to lose. No one is dumb enough to jeopardize a political career for a losing battle.
ccn0p 4y ago
Are you sure about that? https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160SB277 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml...

seydor 4y ago

still better than going to prison

sieabahlpark 4y ago