Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

California approves bill to punish doctors who spread false information

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 108 posts

Re: California approves bill to punish doctors who spread false information

#31

Post by donw »

mc32 wrote: post #26
SanjayMehta wrote: post #13

This will not end well. Say this law was in place when COVID-19 started and a doctor said "hey, this looks like a new virus causing this pneumonia." This is exactly what is supposed to have happened in Wuhan and those doctors were, surprise surprise, punished by their government. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/07/world/asia/chinese-doctor...

With this law would Fauci and the CDC flip-flopping as they tried to figure out what was happening land them in hot water? When doctors repeated their advice and then the CDC reversed, would they have been spreading misinformation, or is official information, even though wrong, by definition not misinformation even when it is false? This's pretty ill conceived.

Of course it wouldn’t get them in trouble. This law is for enemies, not allies.

Re: California approves bill to punish doctors who spread false information

#32

Post by initplus »

kadoban wrote: post #11
landofredwater wrote: post #3

> While the legislation has raised concerns over freedom of speech, the bill’s sponsors said the extensive harm caused by false information required holding incompetent or ill-intentioned doctors accountable. There was no addressing the actual issue in this statement. If you're arguing an issue falls under free speech, then the response of "OK, but it's really bad" doesn't change the free-ness of the speech.

> There was no addressing the actual issue in this statement. If you're arguing an issue falls under free speech, then the response of "OK, but it's really bad" doesn't change the free-ness of the speech. There are no rights that are absolute. You can have a right of free speech and still not be allowed to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theatre. Additionally, being an expert comes with some responsibility. You are given t…

The fire in a crowded theater analogy originated in a US supreme court decision that upheld restricting the speech of anti-war and anti-draft protestors during WW1. This is a case where exactly the kind of speech that people worry about being restricted was in fact restricted.

If you want an analogy for when it's correct to place restrictions on speech this one is a very poor choice due to it's historical context.

Re: California approves bill to punish doctors who spread false information

#33

Post by [deleted] »

SanjayMehta wrote: post #13

This will not end well. Say this law was in place when COVID-19 started and a doctor said "hey, this looks like a new virus causing this pneumonia." This is exactly what is supposed to have happened in Wuhan and those doctors were, surprise surprise, punished by their government. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/07/world/asia/chinese-doctor...

[deleted]

Re: California approves bill to punish doctors who spread false information

#34

Post by upsidesinclude »

Justin_K wrote: post #18

Who keeps voting for these fascists coming up with these bills.

I believe the standard of today is that these ideas, proposed by liberals, can not be fascist by definition.

Now, were a non-progressive to propose such an idea, that would undoubtedly be fascist authoritarian nationalism.

Re: California approves bill to punish doctors who spread false information

#36

Post by upsidesinclude »

encryptluks2 wrote: post #5

In other words, California approves Bill to punish not pushing government-sanctioned information. How far away are they from becoming China?

Evidently not too far behind in one regard:

You must practice right-think

This is the second wave, the first being the practicing of compliance

Re: California approves bill to punish doctors who spread false information

#37

Post by jhanschoo »

SanjayMehta wrote: post #13

This will not end well. Say this law was in place when COVID-19 started and a doctor said "hey, this looks like a new virus causing this pneumonia." This is exactly what is supposed to have happened in Wuhan and those doctors were, surprise surprise, punished by their government. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/07/world/asia/chinese-doctor...

> The law would designate spreading false or misleading medical information to patients as “unprofessional conduct,” subject to punishment by the agency that licenses doctors, the Medical Board of California. That could include suspending or revoking a doctor’s license to practice medicine in the state.

You are discussing a completely different situation compared to the one that the news reports is addressed by the bill. I see this enforcing the fiduciary duty doctors already have toward their patients. If a doctor has an unorthodox opinion regarding their patient's health, they should perhaps clearly mark it as such in their communications to their patients, in which case I suppose it won't be false information anymore.

Perhaps you should read TFA before commenting to prevent yourself from, y'know, spreading false or misleading information.

Re: California approves bill to punish doctors who spread false information

#38

Post by upsidesinclude »

0xy wrote: post #8

Waiting for them to punish the doctors and the CDC who claimed that masks were ineffective at the start of the pandemic, which contributed to thousands of deaths. The CDC's lies were some of the worst disinformation (they knowingly lied) of the entire pandemic. Let's not forget the WHO, who repeatedly claimed COVID was not airborne, caused thousands of deaths through negligence. Or there's the doctors who wrongly cla…

I can't relate to the fact your post and many others are getting grayed out.

The moderators of HN should be able to see that there are people that run through comments, trying to disappear the opinions they don't want to be expressed.

Nothing you've said is even arguably false. It is all relevant.

Much like this legislation, there is a true war occurring all around us, poisoning reason and debate, attempting to control all narratives

Re: California approves bill to punish doctors who spread false information

#39

Post by kadoban »

tanseydavid wrote: post #22
kadoban wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There was no addressing the actual issue in this statement. If you're arguing an issue falls under free speech, then the response of "OK, but it's really bad" doesn't change the free-ness of the speech. There are no rights that are absolute. You can have a right of free speech and still not be allowed to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theatre. Additionally, being an expert comes with some responsibility. You are given t…

> You can have a right of free speech and still not be allowed to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theatre. I am truly surprised how frequently this old gem gets trotted out as if there might be someone who is unaware of it. I am pretty sure most kids (at least where I grew up) get taught about this in 5th or 6th grade Civics or Social Studies classes. And I bet some of them can even recall that it was Supreme Court justice…

If the person I was responding to is aware of it, then I don't know why they're assuming that free speech rights are absolute. It's not like I brought it up with no context.

Re: California approves bill to punish doctors who spread false information

#40

Post by acheron »

kadoban wrote: post #11
landofredwater wrote: post #3

> While the legislation has raised concerns over freedom of speech, the bill’s sponsors said the extensive harm caused by false information required holding incompetent or ill-intentioned doctors accountable. There was no addressing the actual issue in this statement. If you're arguing an issue falls under free speech, then the response of "OK, but it's really bad" doesn't change the free-ness of the speech.

> There was no addressing the actual issue in this statement. If you're arguing an issue falls under free speech, then the response of "OK, but it's really bad" doesn't change the free-ness of the speech. There are no rights that are absolute. You can have a right of free speech and still not be allowed to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theatre. Additionally, being an expert comes with some responsibility. You are given t…

At this point I assume anyone who brings up “‘fire’ in a crowded theater” is deliberately trolling.
Post reply on HN