81–90 of 108 posts
So when are they gonna punish those doctors?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I think it stands as a good example of how restrictions on certain kinds of speech that look very reasonable in a moment of crisis can in turn be judged very poorly in the long term.
I don't personally know where I stand on the free speech issue, I just want people to stop using this stupid "fire in a crowded theatre" analogy.
What do they do if they suspect an aproved treatment is causing death or disability? Talk about it? No that is illegal now. But so is malpractic. Who is going to jail?
So who decides what is misinformation? We already know science is biased or corrupt, and medical experts seeing patients everyday must know a bit more to balance health decisions than politicians What do they do if they suspect an aproved treatment is causing death or disability? Talk about it? No that is illegal now. But so is malpractic. Who is going to jail?
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…
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.
https://www.ama-assn.org/system/files/code-of-medical-ethics...
> 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.
False information such as "we don't know if the vaccine will actually prevent infection" when all the beaurocrats and "scientists" (the only ones who were allowed to speak) were falsely stating that if you took the vaccine, you absolutely would not get the virus? So when are they gonna punish those doctors?
Not actually true
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think this is a fair re-statement of what you said: > "How can anyone believe we need more authoritarian control of information?" The direct implication of this statement is "it's unreasonable to want more authoritarian control of information", stated differently, "only an unreasonable person would support this bill because this bill increases authoritarian control of information." That is demonization. You've defi…
You keep telling me that I'm failing to understand what motivations someone might have for controlling information. I understand perfectly well what the motivations might be, and I understand how it could actually be beneficial given that the information that they're controlling for is unbiased and correct. The issue is that there is no unbiased or correct in the middle of an emerging pandemic with a novel pathogen a…
- Two senior members of the FDA resign as a result of the politically pressured decision to recommend boosters, despite a lack of a safety profile and subsequent risk analyses having been laid out
- Monoclonal antibodies were downplayed as a treatment for COVID during the Alpha and Delta waves, a time during which they were incredibly effective, and a surplus supply was available in every state...unbeknownst to the majority of the public. The pretense for not mentioning treatment options was that knowledge of a viable treatment might discourage vaccination.
- Anthony Fauci lies, under oath, regarding the definition of gain-of-function research, whether it was being done in Wuhan, and whether or not the NIH had been involved in funding the research
- Merriam-Webster changes the definition of "anti-vaxxer" to include people who are opposed to mandating vaccinations, a completely different concept altogether from people who are opposed to the use of vaccinations.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anti-vaxxer
- FDA pushes to allow Pfizer to release the safety data they gathered on the vaccine over a period of 75 years
- At no point in the United States were any vaccine recommendations made at all tailored to the developing safety profiles which diverged in accordance with demographics (i.e. higher incidence of thrombocytopenia in women from adenovirus vaccines, higher incidence of myocarditis in young men from mRNA vaccines)
- Booster recommendations left completely open ended for those who received adenovirus vaccines
- Entire point of going with a novel mRNA platform was on the basis of being able to rapidly iterate to keep up with an evolving virus. We are about to see our first update to the vaccine, just now, with an already dated antigen targeted
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
What do we do when the site doesn't adhere to its' own guidelines?