Can Misinformation During a Health Crisis Be Considered Criminal?

[WWGD]

The problem is, each package of text that comes to you is not labeled in a way that reliably allows you to determine the truth or falsehood. If somebody comes to you and says something along the lines of "the health risks of activity A are X" it's very hard to evaluate this reliably. It may be a challenge even for senior researchers in a subject directly related to the claim.

And even when it's not hard for that researcher, it's a challenge to explain it in a fashion that Joe and Jane in the Street can understand.

And it's also the case that governments tend to lie. A lot. Point at a politician who hasn't lied a lot. You won't get tired doing this pointing because there are not many. It seems to be what they do.

So there is a definite degree of justified lack of trust in authority figures.

It's just not possible to do a lot of research on all the subjects we are required to make decisions about. So, it is highly likely that each of us is following a liar in at least a few things.

The political thing to do is to set up systems that reward people for trying to do the right thing, and not for lying their asses off. And when we discover that some politician has lied his ass off, to at least vote him out.

But many politicians lie because their respective constituencies don't want to hear the hard truths and be challenged. If everyone was willing to hear them, politicians would do so and get (re) elected.

 

[russ_watters]

I don't. There are limits. The German lawyers drew the line when people are directly addressed to believe in such lies for political reasons. We call it "Volksverhetzung". It is mainly meant not to allow holocaust deniers. One of the lessons we had to learn from the Weimar republic, which had a far more liberal constitution. A constitution which led us directly into the known last century's catastrophe. Liberty ends at the point when it affects others'.

The difficulty is in identifying the point at which it affects others. Advising people to break the law is close, but in the US it has to be an imminent risk, called incitement.

Otherwise, this functionally becomes banning some typical forms of speaking out against the government or social problems.

I recognize *Germany's unique historical example, but I don't think it is optimal as a universal approach to the limit of freedom of speech.

*Let me be specific about that: Germany is unique because Naziism is not a hypothetical threat. It is a real group that existed in Germany and there are still people alive today that belonged to that group. Banning the group itself and speech associated with it makes sense. A parallel in the US could be banning Confederate speech, but I can't see a universal application as being reasonable.

 

[fresh_42]

I recognize Germany's unique historical example, but I don't think it is optimal as a universal approach to the limit of freedom of speech.

It is not that this paragraph is invoked a lot. Courts have to judge on case by case, and freedom of speech is usually the winner. Only if your intention is unconstitutional, i.e. meant to replace the constitution by non political means (e.g. riots), only then you'll have a problem.

Arresting hundreds of peaceful protesters (US, e.g. Dakota pipeline, Jane Fonda, Arnold Abbott) is far worse!

 

[WWGD]

The difficulty is in identifying the point at which it affects others. Advising people to break the law is close, but in the US it has to be an imminent risk, called incitement.

Otherwise, this functionally becomes banning some typical forms of speaking out against the government or social problems.

I recognize Germany's unique historical example, but I don't think it is optimal as a universal approach to the limit of freedom of speech.
[/QUOT

It is not that this paragraph is invoked a lot. Courts have to judge on case by case, and freedom of speech is usually the winner. Only if your intention is unconstitutional, i.e. meant to replace the constitution by non political means (e.g. riots), only then you'll have a problem.

Arresting hundreds of peaceful protesters (US, e.g. Dakota pipeline, Jane Fonda, Arnold Abbott) is far worse!

B

But I don't believe they were arrested for expressing unpopular speech , but because of the means they used to do it.

 

[fresh_42]

Abbott was arrested for publicly feeding homeless people. Fonda for her unpopular opinion. Both are too old to protest by illegal means.

 

[WWGD]

Abbott was arrested for publicly feeding homeless people. Fonda for her unpopular opinion. Both are too old to protest by illegal means.

Are you referring to Fonda's opinion on Vietnam? Edit: Or a single case like Abbott, or tou believe this is a pattern?

 

[fresh_42]

Are you referring to Fonda's opinion on Vietnam?

No, the late arrests. I think it was GW but I'm not sure. And Abbott is a chief in Ft Lauderdale of age 80 something. I think we are fine with this little inconvenience that forbids public inciting.

 

[WWGD]

No, the late arrests. I think it was GW but I'm not sure. And Abbott is a chief in Ft Lauderdale of age 80 something. I think we are fine with this little inconvenience that forbids public inciting.

At any rate, I don't see anyone endorsing it here. Maybe you can start a thread on comparisons, but how about making a systematic case instead of citing 2 examples. I don't know enough to comment in more detail. And, yes, hypocrisy is present wherever people are, so not sure on what your point is.

 

[fresh_42]

My point was only, that we do not really have an article against free speech. A court even allowed a personal insult of a certain politician recently. My point is, that the limit is, when people incite masses to break the law, or in our case the constitution. Sabotage is a reason to arrest someone, and that's what happened on Samoa in my opinion: a public call to commit attempted homicide.

 

[WWGD]

On that note, despite many criticisms, both Germany and the US deserve praise in openly airing their wrongdoings , addressing them and taking measures to correct them. Good luck if you dare , in most countries, to openly criticize the local governent, the country's history, or just openly depict the country in a poor light. You may have to worry not only about legal implications but about your personal safety.
Edit: To all of those who criticize the lack of speech in the US, most of the West, I say, go elsewhere and make open, public criticism s. Then tell me how that worked out for you.

 

[fresh_42]

To all of those who criticize the lack of speech in the US, most of the West, I say, go elsewhere and make open, public criticism s. Then tell me how that worked out for you.

... and you can see currently in some "democracies", or historically on the Weimar Republic in Germany, how this right can slowly be taken away from you, piece by piece. That's why I shiver if people come around with implicite all quantifiers: (all) politicians lie, (all) news are fake, (the) government doesn't tell us and so on. We have seen this all before in our country. And believe me: you do not want to end up there!

 

[WWGD]

... and you can see currently in some "democracies", or historically on the Weimar Republic in Germany, how this right can slowly be taken away from you, piece by piece. That's why I shiver if people come around with implicite all quantifiers: (all) politicians lie, (all) news are fake, (the) government doesn't tell us and so on. We have seen this all before in our country. And believe me: you do not want to end up there!

Agreed. Blaming politicians is lazy and should stop. Politicians are a product of their respective societies. If telling the truth got them reelected, they would do so all the time. But they lie because most of the public don't want to hear uncomfortable truths. And, yes, free speech is needed to know and understand what are the problems and how to best solve them. Most people will go to great lengths to avoid addressing issues and will instead blame politicians or, worse, "The other". Edit: I was once asked what the major issues were, that threatened survival. FWIW , I said the inability to air disagreements openly andconstructively.

 

[WWGD]

I think part of the problem, issue with free speech is that the more you progress and overcome major survival issues you tend to want to (over-) sanitize your life and society and control, eliminate all risks and dangers, free speech you dislike being one of those unpleadantnesses we seek to avoid. We end up detached from reality by wanting to avoid all the unpleasantness if we overdo it.

 

[russ_watters]

Fonda [was arrested for] for her unpopular opinion. Both are too old to protest by illegal means.

This simply isn't true. People don't get arrested for unpopular/anti-government speech in the US, they get arrested for things like trespassing or disorderly conduct (e.g., blocking traffic).

Abbott was arrested for publicly feeding homeless people.

Which has nothing to do with speech.

 

[fresh_42]

This simply isn't true. People don't get arrested for unpopular/anti-government speech in the US, they get arrested for things like trespassing or disorderly conduct (e.g., blocking traffic).

... which is what Turkey and Russia says, too. You may call it disorderly conduct, I call it oppression.

 

[russ_watters]

... which is what Turkey and Russia says, too. You may call it disorderly conduct, I call it oppression.

Quite frankly, you aren't entitled to that. You aren't entitled to claim "I don't believe it" as evidence that reality isn't what it appears to be at face value.

I don't know what triggered this, but it's bizarre. Maybe it was in pointing out that Germany's written into law restriction on freedom of speech is more restrictive than the USA's. I was trying to be deferential when I said I understood its practical value. I have no basis for claiming an oppressive motive, and I wouldn't dream of it. Nor do or should you.

As connected to the topic of the thread, though, it appears to me that your view on freedom of speech is that it should be allowed as long as it pleases you; you don't appear to have or be interested in following an objective standard: Anti-vax is bad so it should be oppressed. Anti-pipeline is good so it should be allowed. That's not how freedom of speech is supposed to work. That is the basis of oppression! And maybe that's the risk of the Nazi example; it opens the door to such value judgments.

 

[WWGD]

... which is what Turkey and Russia says, too. You may call it disorderly conduct, I call it oppression.

Formal fallacy. If a murderer , e.g., claims something does that by itself make it bad?

 

[russ_watters]

Formal fallacy. If a murderer , e.g., claims something does that by itself make it bad?

IMO, it's a false equivalence fallacy. Even if they were applied for the same reason (for which there is zero evidence), a "hooliganism" conviction in Russia sends people to jail for years, whereas a "disorderly conduct" citation in the US is roughly equal to a speeding ticket.

 

[fresh_42]

I don't know what triggered this

It just hurts me watching. If people get into trouble for doing the right thing. And by in my eyes not adequate means. Our law enforcement is trained to descelate, and our restriction of free speech overviewed by courts, not the police.

 

[russ_watters]

It just hurts me watching. If people get into trouble for doing the right thing.

Fair enough. I respectfully submit that your emotional pain is not a rational/objective basis for a freedom of speech standard.

I try to be deferential to people in different circumstances to me making judgements/taking actions based on those different circumstances. That's why I tend to say I'm ok with Germany's Naziism ban, even though it is a fundamental violation of the very idea of freedom of speech. But maybe that's a mistake, because what I see here is exactly the risk of such speech bans: Once you ban one, it explicitly opens the door to additional value judgement based speech bans. I thought that Naziism was a reasonable one-off that wouldn't be repeated, but evidently I was being naive; once you open that door, then any opinion is fair game for government judgement/suppression (and you evidently believe that not only are the doors open, but the walls have been knocked down). So Germany can of course do what it wants, but that's a hard line I hope the US never crosses.

 

[russ_watters]

Very topic-specific:

Clearly, low vaccination rates are a public health crisis in many places. It sickens/injures many people and it kills a few people. This behavior is 100% within the realm of government's responsibility to regulate (outlaw). And since most vaccines are taken in childhood, it is relatively easy to regulate; all you have to do is provide free vaccines and make them compulsory for school, daycare, camps, etc. Other public accessible businesses can do it as well, for their employees and even clients (nurses-patients, DMV workers, etc).

There is no need to ban speech and as the discussion showed, it's a door I do not wish to open because clearly once it is open, giant container ships start driving through it.

 

[sysprog]

Well, he was giving medical advice to treat measles with Vitamin C and papaya and medical advice against vaccines. He was giving medical advice, he doesn't have a license.

If he's not unclear about the facts that he's neither a licensed physician nor a holder of a medical degree from an accredited institution, then what he says should be regarded as his personal opinion, and not as the unlicensed practice of medicine or as the dispensing of medical advice.

But this was in Samoa; not American Samoa -- they don't have the same Constitutional protections of free speech and freedom of the press as we have.

If a decently rights-respecting government with good reason prohibits some potentially harmful speech, I wouldn't see much cause for becoming a rebel over it, but I also think you can't by suppressing free speech inoculate everyone against foolhardy granting of credence to quackery.

 

[sysprog]

A parallel in the US could be banning Confederate speech.

A ludicrous comparison. The Southern States wanted secession; not conquest, and they certainly were not genocidal. I acknowledge that the institution of slavery was unconscionable and that it was one of the pivotal and most divisive issues in the war between the Union and the Confederacy.

 

[russ_watters]

A ludicrous comparison.

I'm the one who said it, so I fixed your quote.

I'm not saying the Confederates were Nazis, I'm saying they were a political group who's existence could be banned under the same logic (posing a threat to the country), regardless of the details of the threat. But that isn't a thing in the US, nor do I believe it should be.

Let's not make this something it's not. No comparisons between the Nazis and confederacy, no arguing the civil war.

 

[sysprog]

I'm the one who said it, so I fixed your quote.

I'm not saying the Confederates were Nazis, I'm saying they were a political group who's existence could be banned under the same logic (posing a threat to the country), regardless of the details of the threat. But that isn't a thing in the US, nor do I believe it should be.

Let's not make this something it's not. No comparisons between the Nazis and confederacy, no arguing the civil war.

Ooops -- thanks -- sorry for the misattribution, @russ_watters and @fresh_42 -- and yeah, it occurs to me that my post tended toward pushing things further from intratopicality.

 

[sysprog]

It seems to me that Edwin Tamasese (the Samoan arestee) is not really an originator of the misguidance that he's presented on social media. I think that 'Kelly Brogan, MD', for example, is more directly culpable. She should know better than to present unsupported sophistries against vaccination as if they were not at best grossly irresponsible and clearly more harmful than helpful. I think she's reckless if she's not deliberately harmful. I think that compared to https://kellybroganmd.com/vaccines-fit-paleo-lifestyle/ originated by Ms. Brogan (yes, apparently she earned her MD degree; however, her misconduct makes me reluctant to call her 'Dr. Brogan'), the foolishness presented by Mr. Tamase is merely faithful repetition of things that he's uptaken from professionally crafted nonsense. Here are a few snippets from the provax populist side of the contest on this topic: Can you explain why better nutrition and sanitation eliminated polio in 1954-55 but waited until 1964 for measles? It's very sneaky of nutrition and sanitation to kick in only at the same year vaccines are released.

—Andrew L