31–35 of 35 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Aren't you only affected by the measles outbreak if you're an anti-vax in the first place... ?
Or too young, or immunodeficient, or your vaccination expired (some of the older models only provide some decades of immunity, where a lifetime protection was expected) etc. Nope, this is not "mere" self-harm: innocent bystanders have already been killed this way.
Perhaps some lawyers here can opine: Is it not possible for some of those affected by the recent measles outbreak, and others adversely impacted, to file a class action against the anti-vaxxers ? Call me paranoid, but lately I've been thinking about getting the MMR as an adult who is in mid 40s - and I'm pissed. So, I can't even imagine what someone who is directly impacted might be feeling.
Aren't you only affected by the measles outbreak if you're an anti-vax in the first place... ?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The flag bearers are probably engaging in Constitutionally protected free speech, and do probably can't be held liable in that role.
Genuine question: Is telling people to commit suicide protected free speech? AVers aren’t much different here. Rather than saying “kill yourself”, it’s more like saying “kill yourself - slowly, infectiously, and painfully.”
Telling people in general that they should is protected; telling a particular person that they should may or may not be depending on other factors.
> AVers aren’t much different here.
They are quite a bit different. Yes, not vaccinated increase risk of infection, sickness, and death for both the person choosing that action and other people, but it is a much less proximate relationship to any death than suicide does. Advocating suicide is not itself generally illegal, and advocating courses of action that are not intended to cause death but do in fact increase its likelihood is even less likely to be illegal in general.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think there are some organisations and individuals who are kinda like flag bearers.
The flag bearers are probably engaging in Constitutionally protected free speech, and do probably can't be held liable in that role.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The flag bearers are probably engaging in Constitutionally protected free speech, and do probably can't be held liable in that role.
I'm pretty sure free speech doesn't exempt one from getting sued for damages: otherwise all the copywriters will have a field day with misleading commercials.
It does; if speech is constitutionally protected, it cannot violate the law, and if an action does not violate a legal obligation, it is not a basis for damages.
This is why (for instance) it is much harder to bring a libel/slander case for damages in the US compared to Britain; US libel/slander laws (even in jurisdictions where no statutory provisions exists so the common law would otherwise control) are limited to avoid punishing protected speech.
> otherwise all the copywriters will have a field day with misleading commercials.
Commercial speech has for a long time been found to be less likely to be constitutionally protected than many other forms of speech.