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

71–80 of 108 posts

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

#71

Post by dekhn »

nradov wrote: post #21

Up until 1984, a doctor stating that stomach ulcers were caused by H. pylori bacteria would have been spreading "false" information. https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/when-scienti... This law is a disgusting level of political interference in the practice of medicine. The COVID-19 pandemic seems to have broken people's brains and caused them to discard fundamental principles for the sake of expediency.

another example (also rewarded with a nobel prize): Prusiner discovered that some diseases are transmitted by infectious proteins (not viruses, not bacteria) that propagate through misfolding. It was vehemently denied for decades until the final experiments which were heroic.

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

#73

Post by puffoflogic »

upsidesinclude wrote: post #38
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 contr…

The moderator is too busy fighting the culture war on the side of the flaggers (in this case), why would he help you?

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

#74

Post by seanw444 »

BeefWellington wrote: post #66
mc32 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If it was well-crafted enough, there could easily be carve-outs for "at the time" advice, and requiring updates/clarifications, etc. However, I don't know anyone who would trust Cali lawmakers to actually craft bills well.

"We passed a bill to show those right-wingers that we mean business!"

"Did you consider ?"

"Oh..."

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

#75

Post by nradov »

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…

You seem to be confused about medical ethics. A physician's fiduciary responsibility has nothing to do with unorthodox medical opinions. Fiduciary issues generally only come up when there is a financial conflict of interest, like if the doctor is taking advantage of the patient to make extra money by performing unnecessary procedures.

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

#76

Post by dahart »

abernard1 wrote: post #55
dahart wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

False statements of fact are not protected under free speech. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exce...

Ummm... yeah they are. You're referencing defamation law and contract law. In the case of defamation, you can't be defamed if what the person said is true. And in case of contract law or fraud, lies impact the integrity of a transaction. In the US, you can lie as much as you want with general speech.

> You’re referencing defamation law and contract law.

Why do you think this? The WP article is about a general exception to the constitutional right to freedom of speech, though it is not absolute. It happens to mention some defamation and contract precedent, but if you read it, it’s quite clear the exception is broader than those two cases and not limited to defamation and contracts. It even gives several other categorical examples (such as incitement and slander), so you seem to have gotten the wrong idea.

> In the US, you can lie as much as you want with general speech.

As a summary of the issue, this is mostly false and rather misleading. It’s certainly bad advice in any case. ;) You can choose to lie a lot and you might not get in trouble, but if you knowingly lie about things that materially affect other people, you’re probably not protected in the free speech sense. However the only way to be sure is to go to court, and most people who lie don’t end up in court.

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

#77

Post by feet »

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...

A single doctor should not be reporting something like that to the public on a hunch. Doctors are not researchers, they are not scientists. Generally they are repair technicians

Sure they should report it, but report it to the appropriate people who can confirm and disseminate the information accurately

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

#78

Post by oarabbus_ »

initplus wrote: post #49
oarabbus_ wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Are threats of violence and false, defamatory statements protected speech or not? The point is that "free speech" doesn't mean "100% of speech is protected".

Not to mention even in light of the historical context, one should strongly support the free speech rights of anti-war protestors, but inciting panic in a crowded space ('fire' in a crowded theater) isn't the correct way to go about it.

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

#79

Post by peteradio »

dahart wrote: post #70
peteradio wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tut tut, not all false statements of fact are protected, while some are. Your statement is overly broad as to be a false statement of fact.

Good grief. I linked to an article describing the exception and the exceptions to the exception. This exception to free speech is widely titled, cited, and summarized as the “false statements of fact exception” to free speech. It’s a name, not a complete description, which is why I provided one version of a complete description that has links to all sources.

All apologies Charlie Brown, but I'm only responding to your statement:

> False statements of fact are not protected under free speech.

Which does not agree with the citation.

Post reply on HN