Death sentence over FaceBook posts (Reuters)
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
Okay, who gets to decide what is misinformation? For example, early in the covid vaccination era, women were reporting disruptions to their cycle after getting the vaccine. I experienced this myself, and paid attention to it, but when I read that this was a common phenomenon after the covid vaccine, I wasn't concerned. When I went to my obgyn and she asked if I had any irregular bleeding and I said yes, but it was around the time of my covid vaccine. She told me that information about women having cycle changes due to the vaccine was misinformation. Yet, she also declined to do any testing to determine if there were any other explanations. It's now pretty well established that, like many things, the covid vaccine caused some minor changes to many women's cycles, like it did mine. That was considered misinformation at the time, despite the fact that 1) knowing this was a common reaction was helpful for me to be able to assess the nature of my changes, and 2) there really wasn't enough run time on a large population to even know whether it would affect women's cycles. So this is illustrative of why I disagree with democrats that people should go to prison for "vaccine misinformation" when the nature of "truth" around these issues seems more policy-driven than science driven. They didn't want anyone to notice the effect on the cycles because they thought it would deter women from getting the vaccine, so they suppressed the information which is now widely regarded as true. It's crazy to me to throw people in jail for saying things like "I think my vaccine caused vaginal bleeding" and it's dangerous to suppress this kind of medical information, even if anecdotal. |
Anonymous
Notice I said KNOWINGLY spreading misinformation. This would be spreading misinformation where there is an abundance of evidence to show this information is false, and yet the person continues to spread this information anyway. So no, no one should be jailed for saying "I think this vaccine caused vaginas bleeding" at a time when we were all learning. But someone who continues to say these things with the aim of causing vaccine hesitancy, when we now know a lot more information would be the intentional spread of misinformation. For example, the people STILL touting Ivermectin as a covid treatment are actively lying and potentially endangering people. Spreading misinformation is more than just...being wrong. I also agree that the medical industry shouldn’t suppress inconvenient information, as that goes against the idea of informed consent. In an ideal world, we should be able to trust the American population to understand that some side effects, like small disruptions to your cycle are preferable to dying of effing covid or killing your elderly family member. But unfortunately, we dont live in an ideal world, and people are trying to balance the avalanche of BS people read on the internet, and the general abundance of idiocy. |
Anonymous
Well, yes that's what happens in place in Saudi Arabia, Tunisia, and Iran. If you hate the Regime, you get killed. That's not happening in the UK or the US. |
Anonymous
The US has a different threshold for hate speech than the UK. In the US, those examples would likely NOT trigger an arrest because it needs to be an "imminent" threat and imminency is dependent on the facts and circumstances of the specific case. In the US, they could very well trigger a visit by the police. In the UK - where they traditionally have less permissive speech laws - those examples would trigger an ex-ante arrest. Reasonable people can disagree about this. Frankly, I think the US police are too lax about violent online threats by repeat offenders with access to firearms. But they generally cannot act because the laws constrain them. In short, US policing is responsive rather than proactive. Not much good it does you after you've been shot by a lunatic. |