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

41–50 of 108 posts

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

#41

Post by kadoban »

romeros wrote: post #17
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…

The assumption is that the expert is wrong. Frequently some experts who hold contrarian opinions which are against the mainstream narrative are usually vindicated with time. For instance lets say CDC recommends people to wash their hands with water/sanitizer. There is a group of experts who question the efficacy of it. These experts should not be punished. Least of by layman/politicians/lawmakers/noobs who have no cl…

> For instance lets say CDC recommends people to wash their hands with water/sanitizer. There is a group of experts who question the efficacy of it. These experts should not be punished. Least of by layman/politicians/lawmakers/noobs who have no clue about the subject matter.

They should not be punished if they are honestly wrong and are attempting to find the truth (or of course if they're actually right).

They should be punished if they are actively spreading disinformation, meaning they know or should know that it's incorrect.

We currently have a _lot_ of people spreading disinformation because it pads their pocketbook.

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

#42

Post by tragictrash »

romeros wrote: post #17
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…

The assumption is that the expert is wrong. Frequently some experts who hold contrarian opinions which are against the mainstream narrative are usually vindicated with time. For instance lets say CDC recommends people to wash their hands with water/sanitizer. There is a group of experts who question the efficacy of it. These experts should not be punished. Least of by layman/politicians/lawmakers/noobs who have no cl…

I think usually is a very strong and very incorrect word here.

I understand what you're getting at, but I think you greatly underestimate the amount of incorrect assertions that need to happen before a sensible consensus is reached. Historically, in the body of science, we're wrong something like 99% of the time until someone gets it right.

Also, your comment is a straw man argument. The law isn't going to chastise people questioning existing mainstream views, only the ones spouting horribly incorrect information. Noone is saying it will do that, other than you and other commenters who didnt read the article.

Last, are you really questioning the benefit of washing our hands?

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

#43

Post by SanjayMehta »

jhanschoo wrote: post #37
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 b…

All laws are subject to interpretation.

Didn't you just appoint a judge to your Supreme Court who openly admitted that she couldn't define "a woman" because she "wasn't a biologist?"

When you have such people interpreting laws, good luck to you with this one.

It's clearly designed to suppress dissent, given the disastrous events of the last two years.

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

#44

Post by landofredwater »

tragictrash wrote: post #42
romeros wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The assumption is that the expert is wrong. Frequently some experts who hold contrarian opinions which are against the mainstream narrative are usually vindicated with time. For instance lets say CDC recommends people to wash their hands with water/sanitizer. There is a group of experts who question the efficacy of it. These experts should not be punished. Least of by layman/politicians/lawmakers/noobs who have no cl…

I think usually is a very strong and very incorrect word here. I understand what you're getting at, but I think you greatly underestimate the amount of incorrect assertions that need to happen before a sensible consensus is reached. Historically, in the body of science, we're wrong something like 99% of the time until someone gets it right. Also, your comment is a straw man argument. The law isn't going to chastise p…

> Last, are you really questioning the benefit of washing our hands?

It's dishonest to call his position a strawman then take a strawman position that doesn't have bearing on the rest of your statement.

Along with that, this law was just passed. We don't yet know what it will and won't be used for. You're arguing about what it should and shouldn't be used for.

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

#45

Post by oarabbus_ »

acheron wrote: post #40
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…

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

Why?

It's just one example of free speech not being absolute. Violent threats, defamatory statements, incitement to riot are a few other examples of non-protected speech.

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

#47

Post by jhanschoo »

SanjayMehta wrote: post #43
jhanschoo wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 b…

All laws are subject to interpretation. Didn't you just appoint a judge to your Supreme Court who openly admitted that she couldn't define "a woman" because she "wasn't a biologist?" When you have such people interpreting laws, good luck to you with this one. It's clearly designed to suppress dissent, given the disastrous events of the last two years.

If laws are so openly subject to interpretation as to qualify for your scenario, this legislation would change nothing since doctors can presumably already be suppressed under "unprofessional conduct" by negligent treatment etc. as determined by CA's Medical Board.

On the other hand, if laws were not that subject to interpretation, then I don't see how it affects your scenario.

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

#49

Post by initplus »

oarabbus_ wrote: post #45
acheron wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Why? It's just one example of free speech not being absolute. Violent threats, defamatory statements, incitement to riot are a few other examples of non-protected speech.

Are you aware that this analogy originated in a supreme court case where it was used to support restricting the speech of anti-war protestors during WW1?

“Fire in a theatre” is a great example of using a reasonable sounding analogy to support behaviour (prosecuting anti-war campaigners) that today we judge very poorly.

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

#50

Post by kiawe_fire »

donsupreme wrote: post #35

20 years Atkins diet was vilified. Now ketogenic diet is widely considered safe and even prescribed by doctor for various condition.

And was, and still is, frequently mischaracterized by critics as “all the bacon you want”, failing to mention the core tenant of “healthy natural greens and unprocessed meats”.

I wonder if the people spreading what may have been deliberate misinformation about the diet would fair better under such a law, than the author of the diet information itself?

Post reply on HN