4 ms·
> I'm honestly shocked that people think this is a case where the government should not step in. I think they should have been much more aggressive. The United
by anon291 3y ago
> I'm honestly shocked that people think this is a case where the government should not step in. I think they should have been much more aggressive.
The United States government lacks the right to do this in essentially all cases because it's a right retained by the people. It's a pretty nice right and ought to be protected, which it -- usually -- eventually is.
> The scientific consensus is that countries that took a much more proactive, aggressive approach were far more successful in preventing people from dying. And this isn't like a seatbelt issue where people just put themselves at risk.
Human rights are not -- and should not be -- subject to scientific consensus.
- cowpig 3y ago[flagged]
- tourmalinetaco 3y ago[flagged]
- dang 3y agoYou've broken the site guidelines egregiously here and elsewhere (e.g. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37446036 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37446036, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36696864 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36696864). We have to ban accounts that post like that, so please don't post like that again, no matter how wrong someone else is or you feel they are. If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
- anon291 3y ago> So does your understanding of the first amendment allow about passing a photo of a child being raped? No... You know it doesn't and you also know that this kind of speech is nothing like the speech that was directly prevented here by the government, so let's stop playing games.
- cowpig 3y agoI'm trying to establish some basic understanding of our laws here. There are no absolutes, lines have to be drawn somewhere. And in the case of encouraging people to spread diseases to kill other people, seems obvious a line should be drawn. IMO it's as serious as any of the things I mentioned.
- dang 3y agoWould you please stop perpetuating flamewars on HN? You started and fueled a doozy in this thread. We're trying for exactly the opposite here, so please don't. If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
- melindajb 3y agowhat should they be based on? One way in america we've always defined free speech is this: "your right to swing your fist ends when it lands on my face." I don't think people have a right to free speech when that speech is purposely, and I do mean purposely because it was done on purpose, designed to spread misinformation in such a way that others are harmed by it. There are limits to free speech, and the conversation ends with Popper's paradox.
- 15457345234 3y ago[dead]